VHF-CB
g1lvn
<vhf...@oninet.pt> wrote in message news:b03t3r$4ea$1...@news.oninet.pt...
>
> The VHF could be a band also attributed to the citizens. This would be a
> second citizen band,
isn't PMR446 that already? (alright it's UHF not VHF)
but with the continuation of the 27 MHz band.
> Why the VHF? I enumerate all advantages:
>
> 1. It could be the solution to stop the QRM invasion of a country for
> others countries, as it happens in 11 meters. All countries of Europe
> would have a quiet band,
PMR446
where it would make QSOs in excellent conditions.
> In VHF it has not reflection of signals in the Ionosphere, that would be
> very good to do QSO regional or national. When we want to do DX we use the
> 11 meters.
>
> 2. It would be the solution to the problem that currently torments us, the
> installation of antennas on the roof.
PMR446
In the future few base stations will
> exist, because this situation. It is impossible to install base antennas
> to 11 meters in the windows, it exists special models reeled, for windows,
> but the results are always very bad. A good antenna is half-wave size or
> more. In VHF, for example, if use 146 MHz, the vertical antenna half-wave
> would have only 1 meter approximately, and without reel of load. It would
> be a wonder, all the people install easily an antenna with 1 meter, in a
> window or another small place. This would be the true Citizen Band, all
> citizens would have access easily to it.
>
> 3. The propagation of VHF signals in urban zones is very better, because
> when a VHF signal beats in an obstacle (mainly buildings) great part of
> the signal is reflect for other directions, and in urbans zones, the
Similar for UHF and you've guessed it PMR446.
> obstacles help to the propagation of the signals for many directions and
> for very far. In CB 11 meters, we know that it happens the opposite, when
> the signal beats in the obstacles, great part of this signal is absorbed
> by obstacles and only a small percentage will be reflect.
>
> 4. We would have transceiver equipments of better quality, the presents
> international manufacturers had perfected the equipment production for VHF
> in FM. The FM would be the only modulation to be used in these
> frequencies, the other modulations are not necessary. The frequency would
> be 146 MHz, to be near of the 2 meters Amateur Band, and for the half-wave
> antennas have only 1 meter of radiating.
146Mhz used by fire and other emergency services. PMR446 is not
>
> 300/146 = 2,05 meters - wave length
> 2,05/2 = 1,025 meters - half wave
> 1,025 x 0,96 = 0,98 meters, or 98 cm - value for correct impedance for
> good SWR.
> An half-wave simple vertical antenna would have 98 cm.
>
> The 40 channels would be:
>
> Channel 01 - 146.100 MHz
> Channel 02 - 146.120 MHz
> Channel 03 - 146.140 MHz
users of 146.150 might object (certainly near Newcastle NE UK)
> Channel 04 - 146.160 MHz
> Channel 05 - 146.180 MHz
> Channel 06 - 146.200 MHz
> Channel 07 - 146.220 MHz
> Channel 08 - 146.240 MHz
> Channel 09 - 146.260 MHz
> Channel 10 - 146.280 MHz
> Channel 11 - 146.300 MHz
> Channel 12 - 146.320 MHz
> Channel 13 - 146.340 MHz
> Channel 14 - 146.360 MHz
> Channel 15 - 146.380 MHz
> Channel 16 - 146.400 MHz
> Channel 17 - 146.420 MHz
users of 146.425 might object (certainly near Newcastle NE UK)
> Channel 18 - 146.440 MHz
> Channel 19 - 146.460 MHz
> Channel 20 - 146.480 MHz
> Channel 21 - 146.500 MHz
> Channel 22 - 146.520 MHz
> Channel 23 - 146.540 MHz
users of 146.550 might object (certainly near Newcastle NE UK)
> Channel 24 - 146.560 MHz
> Channel 25 - 146.580 MHz
> Channel 26 - 146.600 MHz
users of 146.150 certainly will object (certainly near Newcastle NE UK)
> Channel 27 - 146.620 MHz
> Channel 28 - 146.640 MHz
> Channel 29 - 146.660 MHz
> Channel 30 - 146.680 MHz
> Channel 31 - 146.700 MHz
> Channel 32 - 146.720 MHz
> Channel 33 - 146.740 MHz
> Channel 34 - 146.760 MHz
> Channel 35 - 146.780 MHz
> Channel 36 - 146.800 MHz
> Channel 37 - 146.820 MHz
> Channel 38 - 146.840 MHz
> Channel 39 - 146.860 MHz
> Channel 40 - 146.880 MHz
users of 146.900 might object (certainly near Newcastle NE UK)
>
> This would be the salvation of the CB in all Europe. It will be the
> renaissance of an old hobby in a new and interesting activity to
> recreative use and to the emergencies.
Isn't that what PMR446 has done over the last couple of years
Divulge this idea. Divulge to
> authorities of your country and to the CB federations of the European
> countries, to the European Citizen's Band Federation (ECBF) and to the
European Parliament.
You might also need some prayers. Or consider Amateur Radio as an alternative,
you shouldn't have a problem getting a foundation licence to start with.
Sorry to be flippant, but what of the above doesn't PMR446 cover? It even has a
calling freq (like ch 19) - Channel 8 Tone 8 and we already have mike keyer's
and music played in my kneck of the woods.
--
73 de G1LVN
www.g1lvn.org.uk
shamelessly whoring my website since 2002
(change "my-callsign" to reply by email)
Paul Evans
"g1lvn" <gareth@my_callsign.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b042ko$l8r$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> <vhf...@oninet.pt> wrote in message news:b03t3r$4ea$1...@news.oninet.pt...
> >
> > The VHF could be a band also attributed to the citizens. This would be a
> > second citizen band,
>
> isn't PMR446 that already? (alright it's UHF not VHF)
>
Yep.
> but with the continuation of the 27 MHz band.
> > Why the VHF? I enumerate all advantages:
> >
> > 1. It could be the solution to stop the QRM invasion of a country for
> > others countries, as it happens in 11 meters. All countries of Europe
> > would have a quiet band,
>
> PMR446
>
Almost - Not all European countries permit PMR446. Some do, but exclude
hobby use (i.e. Austria)
Fine for built-up areas, but not particularly useful in a forest. Wouldn't
VHF be better for this?
>
> > obstacles help to the propagation of the signals for many directions and
> > for very far. In CB 11 meters, we know that it happens the opposite,
when
> > the signal beats in the obstacles, great part of this signal is absorbed
> > by obstacles and only a small percentage will be reflect.
> >
> > 4. We would have transceiver equipments of better quality, the presents
> > international manufacturers had perfected the equipment production for
VHF
> > in FM. The FM would be the only modulation to be used in these
> > frequencies, the other modulations are not necessary. The frequency
would
> > be 146 MHz, to be near of the 2 meters Amateur Band, and for the
half-wave
> > antennas have only 1 meter of radiating.
>
Like-for-like though - PMR446 would only need (I think?) a 12" aerial for
half-wave. Much more compact, and uses less power.
> 146Mhz used by fire and other emergency services. PMR446 is not
> > This would be the salvation of the CB in all Europe. It will be the
> > renaissance of an old hobby in a new and interesting activity to
> > recreative use and to the emergencies.
>
Nope. More users would be the salvation of CB in Europe.
> Isn't that what PMR446 has done over the last couple of years
>
PMR446 is crippled by the fact that base units are not permitted. Power need
not be a problem with a decent half -wave fixed aerial. On top of this,
there isn't really the same 'feel' that one had with CB. Everyone knew what
a CB radio was, but I can't see PMR446 having the same following somehow. As
I said above, some European countries do not allow hobby use on PMR446 (so,
what WOULD you use the radios for then?!), so casual communications are out
of the question.
> Divulge this idea. Divulge to
> > authorities of your country and to the CB federations of the European
> > countries, to the European Citizen's Band Federation (ECBF) and to the
> European Parliament.
>
I don't recognise the European Parliament, or the EU in general, so I would
be a bit screwed there. It's taken the British RA years to allow data
transmissions, but the limitations are so tight, it isn't quite clear what
we're supposed to be allowed to transmit in the first place!
> You might also need some prayers. Or consider Amateur Radio as an
alternative,
> you shouldn't have a problem getting a foundation licence to start with.
>
For casual chat/CB-style activity, AR would not be a great alternative,
especially as there are many Hams over on u.r.a who seem to get very upset
over people using 'their' frequencies!
> Sorry to be flippant, but what of the above doesn't PMR446 cover? It even
has a
> calling freq (like ch 19) - Channel 8 Tone 8 and we already have mike
keyer's
> and music played in my kneck of the woods.
>
Aside from the calling channel, the only activity I have near me at the
moment are a couple of Hams complaining about some moron who keeps keying
over them on the 2-meter band (it seems that they have taken refuge on
PMR446!). The only time I have heard anyone play music on there was once,
and that was because he was testing the dynamic range of his radio speaker
(he was doing this at 3am, so wasn't likely disturbing anyone).
Paul.
Axle Jack
446 is a great thing, no doubt about it, but its not CB. If 446 was given
the same freedom of 27mhz, ie base stations, mobiles, external antennas, a
few more watts and channels, it'd be a fantastic CB service. The UK has
needed a VHF or UHF CB service since the late 70s. I'm still angry about
losing 934 (grrr, spit etc). I cant believe that NATCOLIBAR wanted VHF and
we went against them to go for 27mhz. Still, ancient history now I suppose.
Trust me, as a daily user of UHF CB, I know of what I speak :o)
Jack
http://www.qsl.net/vk2cjc/index.html
Axle Jack
> Channel 02 - 146.120 MHz
20khz spacing?
Is this the US's influence again?
Shane the Ex-Pat Brit
yeah fecking Yankquis get everywhere :-)
Shane
Maine USA
John Knights
and was impressed, and have heard rumours of naughty people in the UK
re-programing old PMR gear to the 446 frequencies, dying to know how well
they work.
John
UK
<vhf...@oninet.pt> wrote in message news:b03t3r$4ea$1...@news.oninet.pt...
>
> The VHF could be a band also attributed to the citizens. This would be a
> Why the VHF? I enumerate all advantages:
>
> 1. It could be the solution to stop the QRM invasion of a country for
> others countries, as it happens in 11 meters. All countries of Europe
> In VHF it has not reflection of signals in the Ionosphere, that would be
> very good to do QSO regional or national. When we want to do DX we use the
> 11 meters.
>
> 2. It would be the solution to the problem that currently torments us, the
> exist, because this situation. It is impossible to install base antennas
> to 11 meters in the windows, it exists special models reeled, for windows,
> but the results are always very bad. A good antenna is half-wave size or
> more. In VHF, for example, if use 146 MHz, the vertical antenna half-wave
> would have only 1 meter approximately, and without reel of load. It would
> be a wonder, all the people install easily an antenna with 1 meter, in a
> window or another small place. This would be the true Citizen Band, all
> citizens would have access easily to it.
>
> 3. The propagation of VHF signals in urban zones is very better, because
> when a VHF signal beats in an obstacle (mainly buildings) great part of
> the signal is reflect for other directions, and in urbans zones, the
> for very far. In CB 11 meters, we know that it happens the opposite, when
> the signal beats in the obstacles, great part of this signal is absorbed
> by obstacles and only a small percentage will be reflect.
>
> 4. We would have transceiver equipments of better quality, the presents
> international manufacturers had perfected the equipment production for VHF
> in FM. The FM would be the only modulation to be used in these
> frequencies, the other modulations are not necessary. The frequency would
> be 146 MHz, to be near of the 2 meters Amateur Band, and for the half-wave
> antennas have only 1 meter of radiating.
>
> 300/146 = 2,05 meters - wave length
> 2,05/2 = 1,025 meters - half wave
> 1,025 x 0,96 = 0,98 meters, or 98 cm - value for correct impedance for
> good SWR.
> An half-wave simple vertical antenna would have 98 cm.
>
> The 40 channels would be:
>
> Channel 01 - 146.100 MHz
> Channel 02 - 146.120 MHz
> Channel 03 - 146.140 MHz
> Channel 04 - 146.160 MHz
> Channel 05 - 146.180 MHz
> Channel 06 - 146.200 MHz
> Channel 07 - 146.220 MHz
> Channel 08 - 146.240 MHz
> Channel 09 - 146.260 MHz
> Channel 10 - 146.280 MHz
> Channel 11 - 146.300 MHz
> Channel 12 - 146.320 MHz
> Channel 13 - 146.340 MHz
> Channel 14 - 146.360 MHz
> Channel 15 - 146.380 MHz
> Channel 16 - 146.400 MHz
> Channel 17 - 146.420 MHz
> Channel 18 - 146.440 MHz
> Channel 19 - 146.460 MHz
> Channel 20 - 146.480 MHz
> Channel 21 - 146.500 MHz
> Channel 22 - 146.520 MHz
> Channel 23 - 146.540 MHz
> Channel 24 - 146.560 MHz
> Channel 25 - 146.580 MHz
> Channel 26 - 146.600 MHz
> Channel 27 - 146.620 MHz
> Channel 28 - 146.640 MHz
> Channel 29 - 146.660 MHz
> Channel 30 - 146.680 MHz
> Channel 31 - 146.700 MHz
> Channel 32 - 146.720 MHz
> Channel 33 - 146.740 MHz
> Channel 34 - 146.760 MHz
> Channel 35 - 146.780 MHz
> Channel 36 - 146.800 MHz
> Channel 37 - 146.820 MHz
> Channel 38 - 146.840 MHz
> Channel 39 - 146.860 MHz
> Channel 40 - 146.880 MHz
>
> This would be the salvation of the CB in all Europe. It will be the
> renaissance of an old hobby in a new and interesting activity to
> recreative use and to the emergencies. Divulge this idea. Divulge to
Steve Hunt
I think there is scope for a VHF or UHF service
that allows some of the things PMR446 forbids,
most notably efficient external aerials and non-handheld
rigs. Perhaps a bit more power. That would
give us a practical radio service fit for inter-vehicle
and base-to-vehicle use, which PMR446 is
decidedly not, without some of the problems
associated with 11m (skip, unwieldy aerial size,
etc).
The GMRS service in the US is pretty much that
and I gather it's quite popular. They even have
repeaters.
-- Steve
Jon H
news:b042ko$l8r$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > The VHF could be a band also attributed to the citizens. This would be a
> > second citizen band,
>
> isn't PMR446 that already? (alright it's UHF not VHF)
Like others i didn't see the original post... 446 although being a
"citizens' band" is very limited in so far that only handhelds are allowed.
> > 1. It could be the solution to stop the QRM invasion of a country for
> > others countries, as it happens in 11 meters. All countries of Europe
> > would have a quiet band,
Agreed, and this is what I've been trying to argue for yonks. The RAmoan
that there is no need for another CB band, yet admit to one of the reason
that people give when ask why they gave up 27MHz was the appalling foreign
interference.
> > 2. It would be the solution to the problem that currently torments us,
the
> > installation of antennas on the roof.
Absolutely, much easier to install, much more wife / parent / planning
authority friendly too.
> > 3. The propagation of VHF signals in urban zones is very better, because
> > when a VHF signal beats in an obstacle (mainly buildings) great part of
> > the signal is reflect for other directions, and in urbans zones, the
> Similar for UHF and you've guessed it PMR446.
The downside is a very low power levels and in densely populated areas,
range would be seriously restricted, more so than with 27MHz. Given that it
would be a completely open system, that would probably be no bad thing.
> > 4. We would have transceiver equipments of better quality, the presents
> > international manufacturers had perfected the equipment production for
VHF
> > in FM. The FM would be the only modulation to be used in these
> > frequencies, the other modulations are not necessary. The frequency
would
> > be 146 MHz, to be near of the 2 meters Amateur Band, and for the
half-wave
> > antennas have only 1 meter of radiating.
>
> 146Mhz used by fire and other emergency services. PMR446 is not
Whilst it's fair to say that UHF radios need not carry the price premium
that the 934MHz radio did, it wouldn't automatically mean they'd be
wonderful quality. Quite the opposite in fact. See 446!
> > This would be the salvation of the CB in all Europe. It will be the
> > renaissance of an old hobby in a new and interesting activity to
> > recreative use and to the emergencies.
> Isn't that what PMR446 has done over the last couple of years
You haven't used it have you? :-) Certainly you could get a new trend going
amongst the yoof. Although whether you could seel something to them on it's
cheapness, is debateable these days.
> You might also need some prayers. Or consider Amateur Radio as an
alternative,
> you shouldn't have a problem getting a foundation licence to start with.
You miss the point of the troll, sorry, argument. CB is completely open,
your mum can use it, the kids can use it, you don't use callsigns, you don't
have AROS breathing down your neck. It's different from the FL no matter how
easy it is to pass.
> Sorry to be flippant, but what of the above doesn't PMR446 cover? It even
has a
> calling freq (like ch 19) - Channel 8 Tone 8 and we already have mike
keyer's
> and music played in my kneck of the woods.
It is beginning to border on the AM feeling of pre-81. One problem with the
cost cutting measures of the black box manufacturers is that they enable
thier radio to be broadbanded so easily. This makes it realtively easy to
get high power on 446, trouble is it's invariably high deviation and off
frequency...
Cheers,
Jon.
g1lvn
news:104272432...@dyke.uk.clara.net...
> > Sorry to be flippant, but what of the above doesn't PMR446 cover?
>
> I think there is scope for a VHF or UHF service
> that allows some of the things PMR446 forbids,
> most notably efficient external aerials and non-handheld
> rigs. Perhaps a bit more power. That would
> give us a practical radio service fit for inter-vehicle
> and base-to-vehicle use, which PMR446 is
> decidedly not, without some of the problems
> associated with 11m (skip, unwieldy aerial size,
> etc).
All services and probably most PMR will be going digital in the next few years,
so there is probably a lot of scope for increased non commercial use of existing
analogue frequencies. However, rather think most CB hobbiest will be on the
Radio Amateur ladder by then and using 2m etc.
g1lvn
news:b06ejb$3cm$1...@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk...
> "g1lvn" <gareth@my_callsign.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:b042ko$l8r$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
> "citizens' band" is very limited in so far that only handhelds are allowed.
You (and everyone else) should try Freeserve as an ISP. It doesn't carry
binaries etc and as a consequence, most other feeds are complete, fast and carry
huge amounts of messages.
(BTW you shouldn't be using the one you are now)
Steve Hunt
years,
> so there is probably a lot of scope for increased non commercial use of
existing
> analogue frequencies.
More likely those frequencies will be handed over to commercial
digital users.
> However, rather
> think most CB hobbiest will be on the Radio Amateur ladder by then
> and using 2m etc.
A lot of CB users are not radio hobbiests and are using
CB as a way to keep in touch while doing their job or
leisure activity. I reckon that this might be the majority
of CB use now, in fact. For these people, amateur radio
is not a suitable alternative. Hence the success of things
like the U.S. GMRS service.
-- Steve
this bit'@vizzavi.co.uk g0mem
Freeserve dial-up and ADSL needs a BT line. It wont work on cable lines. I'm
using Telewest cable modem here and I find the newsfeeds to be very good and
complete, and they do carry binary NGs.
Mike Turner
G0MEM
g1lvn
> > All services and probably most PMR will be going digital in the next few
> years,
> > so there is probably a lot of scope for increased non commercial use of
> existing
> > analogue frequencies.
>
> More likely those frequencies will be handed over to commercial
> digital users.
>
> > However, rather
> > think most CB hobbiest will be on the Radio Amateur ladder by then
> > and using 2m etc.
>
> A lot of CB users are not radio hobbiests and are using
> CB as a way to keep in touch while doing their job or
> leisure activity.
Unfortunatley there arn't a lot of CB users. A lot of not a lot counts for not a
lot.
I reckon that this might be the majority
> of CB use now, in fact. For these people, amateur radio
> is not a suitable alternative. Hence the success of things
> like the U.S. GMRS service.
>
Hence the success of Mobile phones both Voice and SMS texting?
g1lvn
news:8uzV9.8761$Hj5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
You lucky bastard. You are right I'd forgotten about cable. Still I'd rather
live in the country.
this bit'@vizzavi.co.uk g0mem
Trouble with living in the country, is half the time you cant have ADSL
either. :-(
Mike Turner
G0MEM
Steve Hunt
There are not a lot of licensees. I think the
number of users (including occasional ones)
is a lot higher. But the fact that there is
demand for short range, freely usable
2-way radio is shown by the popularity
of 446.
> Hence the success of Mobile phones both
> Voice and SMS texting?
Mobile phones work well for most purposes. But
there are scenarios where 2-way radio works better.
The two things I regularly use radio for are convoy
driving and off-roading. In both cases I want
sporadic but instantaneous communications between
2 or more vehicles over relatively short distances.
Mobile phones are no good for that. It takes too
long to keep initiating and terminating calls and the
call charges are too high to keep the line open.
And they don't work well with > 2 cars.
(I also use radio base-to-mobile in a remote area
where cellphones simply do not work, but where
2-way radio works fairly well, thanks to the base
being on a big hill).
-- Steve
Paul Evans
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:lsmc2vs07672jhqr4...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 22:23:31 -0000, "Paul Evans"
> <uknortherner...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> 146Mhz used by fire and other emergency services. PMR446 is not
>
>
> >Nope. More users would be the salvation of CB in Europe.
>
>
Why not?
> >PMR446 is crippled by the fact that base units are not permitted. Power
need
> >not be a problem with a decent half -wave fixed aerial. On top of this,
> >there isn't really the same 'feel' that one had with CB.
>
> D'oh! That's because it's not CB.
>
Quite - but what I mean is there is little chance of a 'community' forming
on there because very few people know what PMR446 is and the mobile phone
would be a more suitable choice of communication to many people.
> >Everyone knew what
> >a CB radio was, but I can't see PMR446 having the same following somehow.
>
> Those citizens following CB in the UK is relatively tiny.
>
There's still some activity near me, albeit not the same level of activity
that existed six years ago.
> >As
> >I said above, some European countries do not allow hobby use on PMR446
(so,
> >what WOULD you use the radios for then?!),
>
> What they do in other countries is irrelevant. There is no way a 446
> user in this country is going to be in contact with one in Austria.
>
But this wasn't really the point of CB in the first place, was it? It was
intended for more local communications, with a range of 10 miles at best. A
decent PMR446 radio can push four or five miles (could even be further if
anyone was listening - look at how far those analogue cordless phones go!).
>
> If you think we get upset, you should love the response of the
> existing users of the 146MHz band - throughout most of Europe.
>
If only I had the means to hear it(!)
>
> >PMR446!). The only time I have heard anyone play music on there was once,
> >and that was because he was testing the dynamic range of his radio
speaker
> >(he was doing this at 3am, so wasn't likely disturbing anyone).
>
> The has to be just about one of the most stupid excuses I've heard.
> The dynamic range of the speaker is irrelevant.
>
His excuse, not mine!
Paul.
Dave
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:663e2vc59ung51clv...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:49:03 -0000, "John Knights"
> <john.k...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
> >I would vote for a UHF system to, I have used the Australian system
briefly
> >and was impressed, and have heard rumours of naughty people in the UK
> >re-programing old PMR gear to the 446 frequencies, dying to know how well
> >they work.
>
> The reason for this is that though they have been re-programmed to
> 446, the signal deviation is wider than on legit PMR446 sets..
>
> So yes, they have more power, not that you will get noticeably greater
> ranges - more RF power does not equate with more distance. The wide
> deviation of the signal means, one operating on channel 5, is almost
> sure to be causing interference (to nearby users) on Channels 4 and 6
> as well.... Then there are those other non-446 channels on
> frequencies interspaced between the 446 channels and used by other
> users who are probably being wiped out.
>
> Nick.
Let's all just come out and say it... if you want VHF, go get a licence! The
argument from the convoy driver earlier....bull, CB will work just fine, I
worked it for seven years, as it was provided by my employer. Which part of
CB is on 27MHz did you not understand. VHF on 144-146 is an Amateur Band,
and 146-148 are allocated to Primary Users such as the Gas asnd Electric
utilities.
As has been said, the CB Lobby was for 27, you got it... you want VHF...go
get a licence. As for simpler licensing exams...you don't get any easier
than the FL. You want it...go get a Licence! Take it as you wish, it's not
meant as a flame, just a simple point. VHF is available to you, but it will
take more than pressure on the RA.
--
Dave G7NVS
"Views portrayed are necessarily the view of the author, who does not intend
to speak for the many unless the many wish to share his views".
Diphthong
> Quite - but what I mean is there is little chance of a 'community' forming
> on there because very few people know what PMR446 is and the mobile phone
> would be a more suitable choice of communication to many people.
There are various ways people want to communicate.
To complete strangers : This is not in fashion any more, so CB has all but
died out. To complete strangers who share your love of radio - ham radio
fits the bill nicely and now virtually anyone can get a beginers licence.
To people you know :
One to one : Cellphones and texting suits most. For frequent calls or
quick notification, you need radio. PMR446 suits well at close range, CB
is bulky and unreliable.
One to many : Impractical to use anything but radio. PMR446 suits well at close
range, CB is bulky and unreliable.
So there *is* a gap there, that decent UHF CB would serve, or something like
the USA's GMRS (460MHz apprx.) or even their 5 channel MURS at 150MHz (apprx.),
to provide medium to long range comms.
However, people are used to managing as they are, so any demand is slight,
I've certainly heard no clamouring for it from the public. The only people
who call for UHF CB are those who really miss the 'good old' CB days from 20
years ago (which are unlikely to return - although fashions do strange things
are reappear).
Note that the recent UK General licence allows mobile and handset use of
86.3375MHz 164.0500MHz
86.3500MHz 164.0625MHz
86.3625MHz
86.3750MHz
77.6875MHz
169.0875MHz 449.3125MHz
169.3125MHz 449.4000MHz
173.0625MHz 449.4750MHz
173.0875MHz
173.0500MHz
at 5W, for 20 quid a year (but payable as 60 for 3 years). No base stations.
Simplex only. CTCSS and DCS allowed.
It is not clear whether this is for business use only, or whether private
individuals may use this. However it says the fee is "irrespective of the
number of mobiles in use" which would suggest company use.
Telephone The Library and Information Service at the Radiocommunications Agency
020 7211 0502/0505 for details (and let us know!)
I don't believe we've the slightest chance of VHF or UHF CB unless it comes
from Europe.
citizensband
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:4ebf2vkah0ff13l4t...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:35:36 -0000, "Paul Evans"
> <uknortherner...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Exactly. That was the intention behind the introduction of the UK/81
> FM service. Unfortunately those using AM and SSB, together with
> illegal powers and antennas, continued to do so and brought both
> interference and discredit to the whole concept.
> CB has always intended to be for short-range use. Even in the US that
> was the original plan.
>
>
> Nick.
>
Hi Nick
If the Americans intended Cb for short range use, why allocate AM, and then
to compound the felony SSB?
Personally, I think if SSB had been allocated to the UK Cb channels, Cb
would still be a viable proposition. SSB on say a small part of Ten Meters
for Cb'ers, may even have kept all the Cb'ers/M3's off the rest of the
amateur bands ;-)
Trouble is, now 27MHz is to all intents and purposes, useless, and as you
say, it appears we're stuck with it.
Best Wishes
tox
Jon H
> "Jon H" <jon.p.harr...@bt.com> wrote in message
> news:b06ejb$3cm$1...@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk...
> > "g1lvn" <gareth@my_callsign.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:b042ko$l8r$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> (BTW you shouldn't be using the one you are now)
Oh sh*t, you're quite right, wrong PC!
BFN,
JH
Steve Hunt
> licence!
It's important to realise that not everyone who wants
to use 2-way radio wants to do it as a hobby in its
own right I'm sure it's a great hobby but it's not suitable
(or even allowed AFAIK) to use an amateur licence for
practical communication.
> The argument from the convoy driver earlier....bull, CB will
> work just fine
It does work. But for a lot of reasons VHF or UHF
would work better. Lack of skip, efficient aerials are
smaller, etc.
> Which part of CB is on 27MHz did you not understand
There was a UHF allocation too, of course. It was too
costly to make mass market gear for 934 back in 1981,
hence its relative lack of use and subsequent flogging off.
-- Steve
Axle Jack
then
> to compound the felony SSB?
I'm sure I've said this a few times before. But SSB is not a DX mode.
SSB is a more efficient mode than AM or FM, and it will get that little bit
further.
But its the frequency that makes CB suitable for DX. AM, FM and SSB will
travel big distances if the propagation is good (or bad, if you want to talk
locally).
SSB is not exclusively a DX mode.
27mhz is a DX band (when conditions allow).
I think people associate SSB with DX due to the difference in use between
UKFM and 555. But SSB can be used for local chat, in fact I do.
james
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:gung2v8meiicvi9oe...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:03:17 -0000, "Dave"
> <da...@kennel1.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Let's all just come out and say it... if you want VHF, go get a licence!
>
> I'm not a CB user and I already have a licence (it will soon be 30
> years old).
>
> >The argument from the convoy driver earlier....bull, CB will work just
fine, I
> >worked it for seven years, as it was provided by my employer. Which part
of
> >CB is on 27MHz did you not understand.
>
> Perhaps in your case it would be more relevant to ask which part of
> following a thread do you not understand?
>
> You appear to be replying to me, but since my comments were made in
> reply to somebody else and are, it would appear, made from the same
> viewpoint as those which you seem to hold, that was somewhat
> pointless.
>
> >and 146-148 are allocated to Primary Users such as the Gas asnd Electric
> >utilities.
>
> That is incorrect. 146-148 has for many years been a frequency band
> subject to Home Office allocation. It was/is allocated to Police and
> Fire services. These particular frequencies are NOT now used for
> Gas/Electric etc. and I'm not aware of them having ever been used for
> such.
>
> >As has been said, the CB Lobby was for 27, you got it...
>
> Yep! I said it.
>
> Old Nick.
Meg Hertz
> Note that the recent UK General licence allows mobile and handset use of
> 86.3375MHz 164.0500MHz
> 86.3500MHz 164.0625MHz
> 86.3625MHz
> 86.3750MHz
> 77.6875MHz
>
> 169.0875MHz 449.3125MHz
> 169.3125MHz 449.4000MHz
> 173.0625MHz 449.4750MHz
> 173.0875MHz
> 173.0500MHz
>
> at 5W, for 20 quid a year (but payable as 60 for 3 years). No base stations.
> Simplex only. CTCSS and DCS allowed.
>
> It is not clear whether this is for business use only, or whether private
> individuals may use this. However it says the fee is "irrespective of the
> number of mobiles in use" which would suggest company use.
> Telephone The Library and Information Service at the Radiocommunications Agency
> 020 7211 0502/0505 for details (and let us know!)
>
> I don't believe we've the slightest chance of VHF or UHF CB unless it comes
> from Europe.
I believe that some clubs and associations are able to use PMR systems,
so perhaps all it would take, would be to form a national mobile radio club,
get one licence for the lot of us, and away we go!
Those Ascoms being sold off cheap recently for 4m could go to the 77 and 86 MHz
channels, and there's plenty of other PMR surplus for the 164/169/173/449
channels too :o)
*MegHz*
Simon
> Let's all just come out and say it... if you want VHF, go get a licence! The
> argument from the convoy driver earlier....bull, CB will work just fine, I
> worked it for seven years, as it was provided by my employer. Which part of
> CB is on 27MHz did you not understand. VHF on 144-146 is an Amateur Band,
> and 146-148 are allocated to Primary Users such as the Gas asnd Electric
> utilities.
I bet most people who want VHF CB already have an amateur licence.
It's not like they can't do the exams or can't afford radio equipment.
I think the attraction of PMR446 to that kind of person is that it's
quite unregulated and it can be used for such things as talking to
their partner when one of them is away from the house (using some 70
cms handhelds which might never have been used if they had stayed on
70 cms).
The people who would benefit most from VHF/UHF CB have already left
the radio discussions for something else years ago after tiring of
skip on 27 MHz or it is the man in the street who doesn't even know
what UHF means and has never used a CB rig.
If a VHF/UHF band became legal I think there would still be a great
divide between the "hobby" users (who would object to having to use
type-approved gear when they already had an amateur licence for
adjecent frequencies) and the "man in the street" who would be using
the band like a PMR system, although some people might get used to
talking to strangers (this must have happened with CB many years ago -
but now we have other ways of doing this, the internet for example).
Dave
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:gung2v8meiicvi9oe...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:03:17 -0000, "Dave"
> <da...@kennel1.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> years old).
>
fine, I
> >worked it for seven years, as it was provided by my employer. Which part
of
> >CB is on 27MHz did you not understand.
>
> following a thread do you not understand?
>
> You appear to be replying to me, but since my comments were made in
> reply to somebody else and are, it would appear, made from the same
> viewpoint as those which you seem to hold, that was somewhat
> pointless.
>
> >utilities.
>
> subject to Home Office allocation. It was/is allocated to Police and
> Fire services. These particular frequencies are NOT now used for
> Gas/Electric etc. and I'm not aware of them having ever been used for
> such.
>
>
Lucifer = Flames. As a metter of fact, I wasn't referring to you. I suggest
you flame someone who hasn't been on Usenet for a good number of years. You
in fact haven't followeed the thread here.... Many thanks Aresehole.
>
> Old Nick.
Hiram.T.Bombthebastards
<da...@kennel1.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Lucifer = Flames.
Hey asshole! You are really new to this usenet thing huh?
You must be if you're dumb enough to think Nick hasn't heard all of
the Lucifer/Flames jokes before
>As a metter of fact, I wasn't referring to you.
Learn to quote then and whilst you're at it, just what the hell (sorry
Nick) is a "metter" ?
>I suggest you flame someone who hasn't been on Usenet for a
>good number of years.
Nick will toast you you dumbass and make you look stupid whilst he's
doing it, which with you shouldn't be difficult.
You have fun now.
Hiram.T.
Paul Evans
"Simon" <google.3....@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:b3b54353.03011...@posting.google.com...
> I bet most people who want VHF CB already have an amateur licence.
> It's not like they can't do the exams or can't afford radio equipment.
have no plans whatsoever to take up amateur radio. Amateur Radio and CB are
two completely different things. If it wasn't for the Russians and the fact
that something like a TV is capable of obliterating all 80 channels, then I
wouldn't have anything to complain about. The music players and idiots can
just be ignored.
> I think the attraction of PMR446 to that kind of person is that it's
> quite unregulated and it can be used for such things as talking to
> their partner when one of them is away from the house (using some 70
> cms handhelds which might never have been used if they had stayed on
> 70 cms).
I'd say that PMR446 is very much unregulated. Despite the RA's guidelines,
there's nothing stopping people being abusive on there, and because there's
no licence, they're not exactly in a rush to track down those who abuse the
service (but then having said that, they were never in a rush to sort out
the morons on CB, despite the rest of us being expected to fork out £15 a
year!).
> The people who would benefit most from VHF/UHF CB have already left
> the radio discussions for something else years ago after tiring of
> skip on 27 MHz or it is the man in the street who doesn't even know
> what UHF means and has never used a CB rig.
Probably anyone who's fed up of mobile phone charges, or people who want to
communicate as a group (sure, some mobile phone networks allow three-way
calling, but at a huge cost to each user), or people like me who just wants
to chat when they're bored.
> If a VHF/UHF band became legal I think there would still be a great
> divide between the "hobby" users (who would object to having to use
> type-approved gear when they already had an amateur licence for
> adjecent frequencies) and the "man in the street" who would be using
> the band like a PMR system, although some people might get used to
> talking to strangers (this must have happened with CB many years ago -
> but now we have other ways of doing this, the internet for example).
Not really. At least not near me at the moment. There are amateurs and
ex-CBers who use PMR446 and communicate with each other regularly, and some
amateurs do seem to experiment with their own equipment. There's only been a
couple of instances where there has been abuse around here, and this has
normally come from business users who had the mistaken belief that they
'owned' channels on there.
As for the internet, this is also true - You can talk to complete strangers
from around the world on there for far less cost than a 1kW amp and amateur
gear, but the downside is, you don't know who you're talking to - for
instance that girl who you may get to like in the US could actually turn out
to be a 60-year-old bloke! With radio, you have an idea, at least of who you
are talking to, and on top of that, you don't have to decipher all the
abbreviations that most chatroom users seem to use. It also means that you
can avoid all those annoying kids who seem to populate these chatrooms as
well.
Paul.
Axle Jack
> the radio discussions for something else years ago after tiring of
> skip on 27 MHz or it is the man in the street who doesn't even know
> what UHF means and has never used a CB rig.
Cant say I agree with everything you said there, but you do raise 2 very
good points.
1. The people who would have enjoyed a VHF CB service have left the hobby.
They got pissed off with skip interference. We should have had a VHF service
right from the start 22 years ago.
2. The people who would have enjoyed a VHF CB service probably wouldnt have
understood the difference between VHF and 27mhz, they would just know there
wasn't any skip interference.
I live in Australia where we have AM/SSB 27mhz and FM 477mhz, and a lot of
people refer to them both as "AM and FM" or "CB and UHF", they don't know
what the difference is, they just know they work better for different
things. And CB is for the average guy with no specialised radio interest
after all.
Diphthong
LOL, nice one! I can't see that happening somehow, but it would be hilarious!
Niall
<axle...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYbigpond.com> wrote:
>> isn't PMR446 that already? (alright it's UHF not VHF)
>
>446 is a great thing, no doubt about it, but its not CB. If 446 was given
>the same freedom of 27mhz, ie base stations, mobiles, external antennas, a
>few more watts and channels, it'd be a fantastic CB service. The UK has
>needed a VHF or UHF CB service since the late 70s. I'm still angry about
>losing 934 (grrr, spit etc). I cant believe that NATCOLIBAR wanted VHF and
>we went against them to go for 27mhz. Still, ancient history now I suppose.
>
AFAIR at the time, what the masses wanted was to use the gear they had
i.e 27 AM. They weren't interested in those who knew what they were
talking about telling them that 27 Mhz is a stupid frequency for a CB
service, not least because of what happens every 11 years, as now. The
government couldn't bear the thought of actually giving people what
they wanted, hence 27 FM. (Note the similarity with the recent packet
allocation). All very UK, I'm afraid.
--
Niall
Niall
wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:05:13 -0000, "Jon H"
><jon.p.harr...@bt.com> wrote:
>
>>Agreed, and this is what I've been trying to argue for yonks. The RAmoan
>>that there is no need for another CB band, yet admit to one of the reason
>>that people give when ask why they gave up 27MHz was the appalling foreign
>>interference.
>
>But as Axle Jack has pointed out many times, CB might well have been
>on a VHF freq. when first proposed for the UK, but for the strident
>campaigning at the time, for 27MHz.
>They demanded 27MHz... You've got 27MHz.
>
>You got what you asked for, complete with all of the interference
>which you were warned you would get. It's no good complaining now.
>
Nope, they wanted 27 FCC, because it was the gear everyone had. But
the govt. couldn't live with the idea of lawbreakers "winning", so
they shafted them with 27 UK.
--
Niall
Niall
wrote:
>True. Though with very little inconvenience, the Asian manufacturers
>could churn out FM versions (on UK81) of their FCC tcvrs. for approx.
>the same price. 934MHz equipment however was going to cost 3-4
>times as much.
>
>So when the 'customers' trolled into their local CB shop, it was
>obvious which sets they would be buying.
Oh yeah, I forgot about 928/934, which was an obvious red herring, and
as you say, cost prohibitive for most people, and absolutely useless
for mobiles particularly at the then state of the art. (Of course we
all now stroll around with hand held 1800Mhz transcievers without a
second thought, but it does rather rely on a huge density of base
stations.)
A *v*hf CB band, OTOH, would have been catered for equipment wise by
the big manufacturers with a version of the standard chassis they
produce for ham and PMR use, which would have been far ahead of the
then state of the art in CB gear, and affordable. Think how a 1981 CB
rig compared with the average 1981 2M rig, for example.
--
Niall
Niall
wrote:
>
>VHF would have still have been more expensive than a UK81 transceiver.
>
>In 1981 the average price (new) for 2M transceivers, was £200. CBs
>(new) were around £65.
>
I think your £65 is a bit light for '81. My memory is they started at
about £90. I just had to throw out my AR mags of the period as they
got damp, but if the average was 200, the cheapest must have been
less. There is also the fact that the market for the newly legal CB
rigs in '81 was far bigger than AR, particularly as we are talking AR
at the size it was pre legal CB, i.e IIRC the calls only went to
somewhere around G6Cxx and G4Vxx, no G0, G1, G7 etc, so they would
have been cheaper.
The volumes are reversed these days; looking at the Maplin catalogue
they have 2M and 70cm handhelds for less than the CB handhelds.
--
Niall
Axle Jack
> advert being £64.95 or £79.99 with a PSU and a free (?) DV27 thrown in
> as a 'Xmas Gift'
Where I was the 1981/82 prices were 70 to 90 quid. Rotel 220, York 861,
Midland 2001, Binatone route 66, all £70. Rotel 240, York 863, Midland 4001,
Binatone 5 star, all £90.
Some discount places, ie Maplin, sold rigs at £50 from mid 82. I bought one,
and it was crap :o) However by late 83 the boom was apparently over (as far
as the suppliers were concerned, everyone had bought a rig) and I bought a
Rotel 220 from Comet for £23.
I believe that if we had been allocated a VHF band, rigs would cost a bit
more than 27megs, but with the very large production runs, prices would come
down. At CBs height, there was an estimated 5,000,000 users. A whole lot
more of a market than hams on 2m. And rigs would not need to be as complex,
ie no frequency readout, variable freq step etc, so rigs would have been
based on PMR designs, not ham.
Just my theory anyhow.
cheers
--
Jack
VK2CJC / MM0AXL / ACBRO469
http://www.qsl.net/vk2cjc/index.html
Axle Jack
> model they were selling a lot of as well (can't remember the name)
> which was IIRC priced at £39. It sold quite well with customers I
> assume, thinking they were buying a better set... The funny thing
> was, that inside, the tcvrs were identical. :-)
Thats right, the Rotel 230, identical to the 220 but with a RF gain and tone
switch (whoopee) :o)
> Not likely in Brit. That would have been 1/10th of the population.
Thats right, the peak license numbers were in october 82, at just under
3,500,000. To start with there were more licensed than unlicenses users,
hence the 5,000,000 estimate.
> That sort of usage would have made it a hugely successful consumer
> electronic product. Whereas in truth, then, as indeed now, most
> people know little or nothing about CB.
Most people know nothing about CB now, but in 1981/82 I dont think there was
anyone who didnt know the term Citizens Band, even if they didnt really
understand what it was about. Everybody at least knew someone who had a CB,
even if they had never seen one.
Jack
Niall
wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:53:03 +0000 (UTC), Niall
><nia...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>I think your £65 is a bit light for '81.
>
>I was quoting a price from an old copy of PW. The actual price in the
>advert being £64.95 or £79.99 with a PSU and a free (?) DV27 thrown in
>as a 'Xmas Gift'
>
>>My memory is they started at
>>about £90. I just had to throw out my AR mags of the period as they
>>got damp, but if the average was 200,
>
>Example prices:
>
>TR2300 £179.99
>TR7500 £249.99
>IC215 £169.95
>IC240 £229.99
>FT227R £249.95
>FDK Multi £185.00
>KDK2025 £229.95
>
>Of these examples, the 2300 and the 215 are strictly speaking portable
>tcvrs - running just 1W and 3W of RF respectively.
>
>The other four are all standard 10W (minimum) mobile tcvrs.
You are comparing a special offer with RRPs, but I accept they were to
an extent more expensive. In retrospect I suspect more expensive CB
gear would have been no bad thing!
>
>>The volumes are reversed these days; looking at the Maplin catalogue
>>they have 2M and 70cm handhelds for less than the CB handhelds.
>
>That has more to do with the fact that they have more of a global
>market for the amateur tcvrs. The frequencies/modes are much the same
>throughout the world. In addition the basic tcvr, can and is - with
>only cosmetic changes and reprogramming of the software - available
>for use on other VHF bands by non-amateur users.
>
Which is why VHF CB would have been competitive, it's just another
outlet for a version of the standard kit.
--
Niall
Niall
wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 11:32:41 +1000, "Axle Jack"
><axle...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYbigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>Some discount places, ie Maplin, sold rigs at £50 from mid 82. I bought one,
>>and it was crap :o) However by late 83 the boom was apparently over (as far
>>as the suppliers were concerned, everyone had bought a rig) and I bought a
>>Rotel 220 from Comet for £23.
>
>I remember seeing those in my - then - local Comet, they had another
>model they were selling a lot of as well (can't remember the name)
>which was IIRC priced at £39. It sold quite well with customers I
>assume, thinking they were buying a better set... The funny thing
>was, that inside, the tcvrs were identical. :-)
I bought a Rotel RVC240 for 90 odd right at the start, and a York JCB
861 a few years later for about £20 when Boots (!) were selling them
off. Both Cybernet 134 chassis, which I always reckoned were the best
of the then available sets.
Got an AR licence and an FT730, drifted into other things after a
while, the '240 got stolen, the '861 dissappeared somewhere along the
way, I had been thinking for a while of getting a small rig for my
work van for traffic info when I spotted a Danita 80 channel in Cash
Converters for £40 including a PSU and base ant.
Things are certainly a lot quieter these days, but the truckers are
still active on 19, I think the usage pattern parallels the US a few
years down the line, and its possible that more people will come back
to it with time, now that there are far fewer morons and twice as many
channels.
I can't see AR as a substitute, the truckers aren't going to take the
time and effort for a start, and AR is still too technical and
involved for the ordinary punter. It's even possible that PMR 446
could result in an upsurge in interest in CB as the logical next step
offering mobiles and bases, more range (particularly as we move off
the sunspot maximum) etc.
That this group is becoming the uk home for PMR446 chat might even be
a contributory factor- I wonder how many on this group found it via a
google search for 446 stuff?
--
Niall
Axle Jack
> still active on 19, I think the usage pattern parallels the US a few
> years down the line,
Not just the US. All countries have followed the same trend. The only place
I hear which seems to be experiencing the "boom" is Asia. Its just a shame
they didn't all get 40 channel rigs instead of Lincolns. If they would stay
out of 10m band I'd be a lot happier :o)
Axle Jack
Lower. Much lower. Its market saturation. They charge what they think people
will pay, NOT what they are worth.
Axle Jack
> phones and mobile radios comes into force?
They will ignore it and continue regardless, as anyone should do when a law
is a crock of shit.
Just cos its law, doesn't make it right.
Dave
"Hiram.T.Bombthebastards" <hiram.t.bom...@usafe.eur> wrote in
message news:3e2ab6e2...@news.internet-today.co.uk...
Axle Jack
> suitable had it been created from the start - instead of UK81.
> The evidence to suggest that there would be a large market now, is
> just not there.
Sadly, you are right. If we'd had a VHF service right from the start, it
would have been well worth the while of manufactureres, but now, its
qustionable. But then look at 446, its almost UHF CB, and its a roaring
success.
> You're not paying attention old son. :-)
I've read the group charter, and it didn't say I had to :o)
Axle Jack
I feel the law is more to do with revenue than safety, but we'll have to
agree to disagree on that one.
In Australia (yes I know, when will he shut up about it:o) all states banned
mobile phone and mic use while driving, but most states have re-allowed
microphone (but not phone) use as they realised their emergency services
could no longer use their radios without a second person in the vehicle.
It was to expensive to fit hands free mics in thousands of police cars.
Proving its about money not safety.
Money is the reason, the threat and the justification. And always will be.
Wandering off topic again, sorry.
Niall
wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:20:38 +1000, "Axle Jack"
><axle...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYbigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>They will ignore it and continue regardless, as anyone should do when a law
>>is a crock of shit.
>>Just cos its law, doesn't make it right.
>
>I agree with this law.
I think it's bollocks; typical New Labour populist crap justified by
bad statistics.
In a "high" number of accidents, a driver *may* have been using a
mobile phone. Not surprising, as almost everybody has one. This does
not prove that using the phone is a significant problem. They could
say the same thing about ICE, but the concept of ICE was established
long before this government, so they can't touch it.
>
>If they ignore it and are seen to get away with ignoring it, then
>everybody else will as well. However a few high profile court cases,
>with a suitable fine imposed - £400 for the first offence perhaps and
>£2000 for the second, plus points on the licence, may well alter their
>view.
It is already illegal to use a hand held microphone, in the sense that
the Highway Code advises against it and ignoring the HC is taken to be
careless / dangerous driving. This came about as a result of the
popularity of CB at the time. It is however practically impossible to
prove, and wagon drivers take care not to be spotted doing it by the
cops.
>
>Similar high levels of fine imposed at ports of entry, on those truck
>drivers who haven't checked their vehicles for illegal immigrants
>hiding in them, has, if nothing else led to an extremely 'nice little
>earner' for the treasury.
>
Not any more, it was found to be unfair and stopped. The current RHA
battle is to get the fines back for those hauliers who paid them. Any
outstanding fines will *not* be collected.
--
Niall
Niall
wrote:
>But pricing is often more a case of 'what the market will pay'
>particularly here in Britain. In that respect it is interesting to
>draw comparisons between a certain model of 'amateur' tcvr and the
>like models for use on business and marine bands.
>
>The amateur model sells for £200. (£199.99 in fact)
>The marine model sells for £300. (£299.99)
>The business version sells for £420. (£418.65)
>
>So which way would the price of a CB version go... Higher or lower?
>
My guess is it would be about the same as the AR version, as it would
be marketed pretty much alongside it by the same channels, and the
costs would be the same.
These prices are an interesting comparison, and there are a number of
possible factors:
Type approval; the AR kit doesn't need this AFAIK, the marine kit
needs to meet one standard and the buisness kit another, probably more
stringent as it has a greater potential to cause interference. TA is
an expensive process.
Marketing: Leisure orientated marine kit is always a rip off. Most
stuff which has other applications can be bought outside the Chandlers
for a fraction of the price. VHFs can only be bought from the
chandlers...
The RRP of buisness kit is only ever a guide, trade discounts
invariably apply.
I suspect that the AR kit is currently sold at small margins because
the market for it is dying. If it wasn't so easy to produce it as a
version of other applications I doubt most manufacturers would bother.
VHF CBs as another version would be a useful extra volume added to the
AR version.
Who knows, it might yet happen. As I said, probably as a result of a
demand building up for a "super - PMR 446" system rather than an
extension of the CB system. After all, whats 400kHz at mid-VHF? I'll
risk the flames and mention that these days it could come out of the
2M AR allocation without causeing any congestion problem.
--
Niall
Axle Jack
> careless / dangerous driving.
Hold up a minute there. The highway code is NOT the law. It is only advise,
and ignoring good advise is not illegal. Only breaking the law is illegal.
To many people these days want to stop people doing things because political
correctness (spits in disgust) has convinced them that an activity should
not be allowed, when it actually is.
I had a huge argument with Chris Perry of the BCBC because he thought that
using a mic while driving was illegal. At that time it was only illegal if
it effected your ability to drive safely, and if it did you picked up a
careless driving charge. But he thought you could be charged regardless if
seen with a mic in your hand. And that was a head guy in our representative
society. (whos laughing at the back)
Political correctness should be left for politicians who are correct. And
that group is a very small number indeed.
Axle Jack
> mobile-phone, or hand-held microphone, is heavily fined or better yet
> loses their driving-licence, the better.
Now Nick, you have always struck me as a sensible sort of bloke, why go all
"anti" on this? I fully agree that people who drive carelessly are a menace
and should be encouraged into safe practises, and punished when their
inability to safely pilot their vehicle results in someone else's injury.
But why does careless driving caused by mobile phone use need heavier fines
than careless driving caused by any other reason. Surely it is just as bad
to cause an accident because you were changing a CD, or picking your nose,
or cos you are just a crap driver. But now it is not the case, the accident
caused by an inability to drive will be passed off as an accident that could
have happened to anyone, but the phone user will have to pay dearly. All
carelessness is life threatening, phone users shouldn't be thought any
different to any crap driver.
Personally I think the phone companies could go a long way to helping the
situation. These days we can get a mobile phone for almost nothing, but the
car kit costs a packet. If they increased the cost of the phone and made the
hands free kit a lot cheaper, loads more people would buy them, instead of
making do without. Just my view.
Niall
<axle...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYbigpond.com> wrote:
>> the Highway Code advises against it and ignoring the HC is taken to be
>> careless / dangerous driving.
>
>Hold up a minute there. The highway code is NOT the law. It is only advise,
>and ignoring good advise is not illegal. Only breaking the law is illegal.
Yes, and if you are in court charged with breaking the law on careless
or dangerous driving, ignoring the HC is taken as irrefutable evidence
that your driving was in fact careless or dangerous.
--
Niall
Niall
wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:43:06 +0000 (UTC), Niall
><nia...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>In a "high" number of accidents, a driver *may* have been using a
>>mobile phone.
>
>How about that truck driver that killed somebody he didn't even
>notice, when he was driving along whilst trying to send his
>girl-friend a text message from his mobile-phone.
>
>Then there was the delivery-van driver who reversed back over a
>pedestrian, who he hadn't noticed, because he was phoning his office
>at the time.
>
>Then there was the truck driver who ran into a broken-down car on the
>hard shoulder of a motorway, whilst using his mobile-phone. The
>car-driver was killed, the truck driver only got 4 years.
>
>I could list many other instances, but why should I do the job of a
>decent search engine..
>
No doubt you could, and as I said, when millions of people are driving
about using phones, some of them are going to be in accidents. In two
of your examples, you said "while using a mobile" which is correct,
but doesn't imply any causal link. The other has "because" which
implies a causal link which isn't there. There are many more examples
of exactly the accidents you have described, only no mobile was
involved.
And incidentally as a van driver it doesn't surprise me in the
slightest that people get run over by reversing vans. What is it about
a reversing van or truck which compels pedestrians to dodge lemming
like round the back where the driver can't see them and so close that
if they stumbled he couldn't stop anyway? And reversing bleepers are
*illegal* under 3.5 tonnes, not that they or orange beacons stop the
determined lemming...
>>>Similar high levels of fine imposed at ports of entry, on those truck
>>>drivers who haven't checked their vehicles for illegal immigrants
>>>hiding in them, has, if nothing else led to an extremely 'nice little
>>>earner' for the treasury.
>>>
>>Not any more, it was found to be unfair and stopped. The current RHA
>>battle is to get the fines back for those hauliers who paid them. Any
>>outstanding fines will *not* be collected.
>
>You missed the point of that. I was using that as a direct comparison
>of the effects of 'high profile' fines. Yes it was dropped -
>interestingly enough, just before the last election - but as yet the
>fines have not been repaid.
>
>Whilst that law was being enforced, it was certainly having the effect
>of making the truck-drivers more aware of what/who was in the back of
>their vehicles. I see that Europe is now actively looking at
>introducing a similar law to apply throughout the EU, so I wouldn't
>hold your breath waiting for those fines to be repaid.
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that law to be made, either.
The continental truckers will bring europe to a halt if it looks
likely.
>
>The sooner the law is brought in and anybody caught using a
>mobile-phone, or hand-held microphone, is heavily fined or better yet
>loses their driving-licence, the better.
Why stop there? Why not ban car radios, adjusting heater controls,
talking to passengers etc etc.- it would have as much impact on
safety. I can assure you you are far safer sharing the motorway with a
40 tonne artic driven by a bloke chatting on his mobile or CB, than
you are sharing it with the shiny hatchback doing 40 in the inside
lane who clearly is barely in control, not really happy with the
situation at all, and has no idea that you exist.
--
Niall
Niall
wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:43:07 +0000 (UTC), Niall
><nia...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>Type approval; the AR kit doesn't need this AFAIK, the marine kit
>>needs to meet one standard and the buisness kit another, probably more
>>stringent as it has a greater potential to cause interference. TA is
>>an expensive process.
>
>Well the existing 27MHz equipment is subject to Type Approval - hence
>the CEPT or UK81 markings.
>
>I have no doubt that any VHF/UHF CB would also be subject to TA.
>This in itself will raise the price of the amateur model - the amateur
>model doesn't need TA because radio amateurs are allowed by their
>licences to modify the equipment and obviously such modifications are
>likely to take them out of the TA spec.
True, my point was that in this context the AR kit is cheaper because
of no TA. Did you mean "raise the price of the CB model" above? I
can't make sense of the sentance otherwise.
>
>>Marketing: Leisure orientated marine kit is always a rip off. Most
>>stuff which has other applications can be bought outside the Chandlers
>>for a fraction of the price. VHFs can only be bought from the
>>chandlers...
>
>It's also subject to TA
>
>>The RRP of buisness kit is only ever a guide, trade discounts
>>invariably apply.
>
>Nope. That only works with large quantities. Most PBR licence
>holders have only small numbers of sets in use.
>
Buisness wholesalers routinely discount to account holders. RS
components quantity discounts for comms kit starts at 2 units.
>>I suspect that the AR kit is currently sold at small margins because
>>the market for it is dying.
>
>No more so than the market for CB sets.
But the VHF CB market would be a new one- PMR 446 suggests it could be
substantial. V/UHF AR is on a downward spiral - a lot of users were
only there because the morse test kept them off HF phone, this is no
longer the case to a large extent and shortly won't apply at all.
>
>>If it wasn't so easy to produce it as a
>>version of other applications I doubt most manufacturers would bother.
>>VHF CBs as another version would be a useful extra volume added to the
>>AR version.
>
>That would depend on what you mean by extra volume. There is no
>evidence to suggest any significant demand for a VHF or UHF CB
>service.
I think PMR 446 is the evidence.
>
>>Who knows, it might yet happen. As I said, probably as a result of a
>>demand building up for a "super - PMR 446" system rather than an
>>extension of the CB system. After all, whats 400kHz at mid-VHF? I'll
>>risk the flames and mention that these days it could come out of the
>>2M AR allocation without causeing any congestion problem.
>
>Harmonisation is the 'in-word' in radio spectrum allocation in Europe.
>Frequency bands are being brought into line throughout the continent -
>details on the RA website.
>
>2M isn't available. AR has the status of Exclusive-user in that band.
>
>Even if (a) there was any demand for a VHF CB service, and, (b) the RA
>wanted to give part of 2M over to such a service, they would run foul
>of international treaty law and be up before the courts - with the
>massive daily fines which that entails.
European allocations can be changed as well; I imagine the decline in
usage is worldwide. The impetus could even come the other way i.e.
Europe decides to cut the band.
>For the foreseeable future 2M is probably the safest AR allocation
>there is.
Use it or lose it still applies; 2Mhz is a big chunk of bandwidth even
for NFM.
--
Niall
Simon
> As has been said, the CB Lobby was for 27, you got it... you want VHF...go
> get a licence. As for simpler licensing exams...you don't get any easier
> than the FL. You want it...go get a Licence! Take it as you wish, it's not
> meant as a flame, just a simple point. VHF is available to you, but it will
> take more than pressure on the RA.
Put the "social/hobby" CB on the amateur bands (without any exams for
the most basic level) and the "business/safety" CB somewhere else
(away from 27 MHz, using CTCSS/DCS). 27 MHz is a very good long
distance band and should be used for DX. Most of the FM simplex
activity on 2 metres (or 70 cms) is 'closed' nets and it wouldn't make
any difference whether they were talking about radio or not.
The people who left CB in the 80s to go on amateur radio would then
meet up again with those who left CB because of the skip interference
(or had other things to do).
Diphthong
>> 86.3375MHz 164.0500MHz
>> 86.3500MHz 164.0625MHz
>> 86.3625MHz
>>
>> 169.0875MHz 449.3125MHz
>> 169.3125MHz 449.4000MHz
>> 173.0625MHz 449.4750MHz
>> 173.0875MHz
>> 173.0500MHz
>>
>> at 5W, for 20 quid a year (but payable as 60 for 3 years). No base stations.
>> Simplex only. CTCSS and DCS allowed.
>>
>> It is not clear whether this is for business use only, or whether private
>> individuals may use this. However it says the fee is "irrespective of the
>> number of mobiles in use" which would suggest company use.
>> Telephone The Library and Information Service at the Radiocommunications
>> Agency
>> 020 7211 0502/0505 for details (and let us know!)
>After somebody else posted an idea about starting a radio club and buying a
>UK general Licence £60 for 3 years giving us 15 VHF/UHF channels, I rang
>them. They said there is no problem with a club holding the licence - as long
> as they have a named individual as point of contact, and any member can have
> there own equipment.
>So there you have it, VHF CB is here if we want it, at less cost than a CB
>licence!
>--
>John Knights,
Nice one John, thanks for the research.
So, what would be everyone's favourite choice of band?
86MHz (3 channels) ?
164/169/173 (7 channels) all possible on 1 antenna centred on 169?! ?
449MHz (3 channels) ?
If mobile use was predominant, I think low VHF would be better, but mid VHF
might be a better compromise for antenna size v urban performance perhaps.
449 (or the single 77MHz channel) might have an advantage of not interfering
with numbers of existing users?
(164 and 449 would tempt people into using expanded ham radios, I'm sure)
Do you think they'd change the rules if suddenly there were 100 club members
all chatting on these channels?! 1000?!
How much is the equipment.. I assume it would have to be approved to a certain
standard and would be several hundreds per radio?! Anyone know of more
reasonable legal PMR kit?
So... we just form a UK General Radio Club (for the purpose of enjoying mobile
radio communications free from 27MHz interference and amateur radio rules),
grant free membership * and allocate membership numbers (which could form a
callsign if needed) and away we go?
* if I was running it I'd gladly fund 20 quid a year myself
Does anyone think this is actually feasible? Even if it started as small
groups of local enthusiasts, with some tropo DX fun for an additional bonus?
How long would it last before the RA clamped down on it, I wonder!
Still, it would demonstrate the demand for VHF/UHF CB, and they might be
forced to take the USA approach and deregulate it, like 150MHz MURS!
QrizB
wrote:
>>> Note that the recent UK General licence allows mobile and handset use of
>>> 86.3375MHz 164.0500MHz
>>> 86.3500MHz 164.0625MHz
>>> 86.3625MHz
>>> 77.6875MHz
>>>
>>> 169.0875MHz 449.3125MHz
>>> 169.3125MHz 449.4000MHz
>>> 173.0625MHz 449.4750MHz
>>> 173.0875MHz
>>> 173.0500MHz
<snip>
>So, what would be everyone's favourite choice of band?
> 86MHz (3 channels) ?
> 164/169/173 (7 channels) all possible on 1 antenna centred on 169?! ?
> 449MHz (3 channels) ?
>
>If mobile use was predominant, I think low VHF would be better, but mid VHF
>might be a better compromise for antenna size v urban performance perhaps.
86MHz would be within the coverage of surplus military kit (Clansman,
Jaguar, and various other stuff). Not that this would necessarily be
legal, or for that matter any cheaper than commercial rigs, but all
the same ...
--
QrizB
I sound like I know what I'm talking about, but don't
be fooled.
Diphthong
I suspect that having no base stations allowed will limit the popularity
of this idea, even if you can use a hand portable in the house. Then again,
with only the single licence holder being known directly by the RA, anything
could happen!
Would they be able to tell if an antenna in the loft was used rather than
the handheld on its own? Or if it was mains PSU powered..?
This could be just the thing for 4WD off roader clubs though, if they were
fed up with CB and 446, and didn't mind the initial expense. Otherwise, unless
we can find a source of kit that compares favourably with CB in terms of price,
I can't see it happening in a big way, if at all.
I only wish a had friends who were still interested in radio comms, they
either gave up CB years ago, or were never on it, or have progressed to
ham radio and don't even use that these days. So none of this is a goer
for me personally, I can't imagine it catching on in these parts, but I'd like
to see it take off in other areas. I'd join a club though, just so that I'd
have 'permission' to monitor the UKG channels if I could be a****d to buy
a scanner, LOL
citizensband
"Diphthong" <neverche...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c188bc09.03020...@posting.google.com...
> Qr...@dev.nul (QrizB) wrote in message
news:<3e3ee22c...@text.news.ntlworld.com>...
>
> I suspect that having no base stations allowed will limit the popularity
> of this idea, even if you can use a hand portable in the house. Then
again,
> with only the single licence holder being known directly by the RA,
anything
> could happen!
> Would they be able to tell if an antenna in the loft was used rather than
> the handheld on its own? Or if it was mains PSU powered..?
>
I agree, no base stations will make it a non-starter IMHO.
A loft or roof antenna should make a big difference and would probably
extend the range considerably...maybe someone can estimate by how much?
Ah well, back to the drawing board :-(
Cheers
tox
John Knights
a customer of his had several h/h but were co-ordinated via a base
"control". The RA solution was
-buy a Motorola mobile unit with built in back up battery, glue the battery
in place, and fix to a rubber duck antenna, as long as the mains are
disconnected when in use it is a "portable" radio!
I would be tempted to start a club as being into 4x4's I could double up the
useage of the system, the down side is I would have to buy a pair of
licencable radios to show the nice people from the RA when they come round
to inspect :-(
The best bet freq wise would be VHF hi band 169ish as there is tons of cheap
kit available.
"citizensband" <citize...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:joP%9.923$lj6....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
Diphthong
[ was UK General Club ]
> I agree, no base stations will make it a non-starter IMHO.
>
> Ah well, back to the drawing board :-(
Well I guess that just about wraps up all hope of proving a demand for
a better CB band, when an idea like this gets such poor response.
But still, if you want mobile/handheld comms for a club, the gear can
be bought for around the 200 quid area, see
http://www.candlinternational.uk.com/UVHF%20Radio%20-%20Maxon.html
(prices at http://www.candlinternational.uk.com/UVHF%20Radio.html )
although the 400 to 500 quid region seems to be the favourite way
to price these things, especially for the nicer rigs.
For some reason many sites think giving prices is too vulgar,
but here are some sites that are brave enough..
http://www.maximonsolutions.com
http://www.relcom.co.uk/acatalog/index.html
http://www.mwc.co.uk/acatalog/_MWC_Online_Shop_Mobile_Radios_7.html
I'm not sure about costs of programming the channels, and of course
battery packs and antennas will cost even more, but it is all on a
par with the costs of 934MHz CB in its day.
I see that some PMR kit covers 144-146MHz, so any purchase that ended up
as a waste of money could still at least be used for 2m.
I suppose you could use a legal PMR rig for both 164-173MHz UKG and 2m in the
one installation (given a suitable antenna!) which would be convenient, and
I suspect the performance on 2m RX would p*** all over the average
intermod-prone 2m mobile.
But anyway, I would imagine any decent CBer who wanted to chat 'seriously',
i.e. the sort willing to spend good money (like 934ers), would by now have moved
to Foundation Licence ham radio. Callsigns and logbooks aren't the end of
the world, it's so easy to get the M3 callsign and you've got tons of channels
to play with - and HF into the bargain.
All other types of CBers are more likely to put up with 27MHz and never ask
for anything better, IMHO.
I look forward to the moaning when they cancel the muppets channels soon,
and we're only left with a deregulated EURO 40...
http://www.psspg.radio.gov.uk/documents/PSSPG18(02)02.doc
"With Citizen radios vacating the 27MHz band in 2003/4 in the UK..."
(see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UK_CB_Radio )
What a waste of time, 27.4 - 28 MHz will never be clear for anything else,
even if there was no UK activity (as if!) there's too much 'skip' crud.
Just because 934 was cleared well, it doesn't mean 27/81 will give in easily!
Philip de Cadenet
>But still, if you want mobile/handheld comms for a club, the gear can
>be bought for around the 200 quid area, see
>http://www.candlinternational.uk.com/UVHF%20Radio%20-%20Maxon.html
>(prices at http://www.candlinternational.uk.com/UVHF%20Radio.html )
>although the 400 to 500 quid region seems to be the favourite way
>to price these things, especially for the nicer rigs.
both VHF and UHF.
From Motorola GP300's to Maxon SL55's (the later model) complete with
chargers etc at between £50 - £100 a throw.
Oh yes, and a warranty, And programming to whatever frequencies are
required as long as they're within the radio's capability's.
--
Philip de Cadenet G4ZOW
Transmitters 'R' Us
http://www.transmittersrus.com
Diphthong
> I would be tempted to start a club as being into 4x4's I could double up the
> useage of the system, the down side is I would have to buy a pair of
> licencable radios to show the nice people from the RA when they come round
> to inspect :-(
> The best bet freq wise would be VHF hi band 169ish as there is tons of cheap
> kit available.
I wouldn't want to encourage 5kHz deviation kit on UKG though.
So, is there anything in particular one has to do, to form a club? Or can
you just set out your own rules and sit back and wait for people to join?
I wonder if the 88.5Hz CTCSS tone used on 446 will be used on UKG
for general stuff and DXing, LOL
Jon H
news:puJ5aTCZ...@fslife.co.uk...
Ahhh programming now there's a thorny subject! (I guess you've now been
inundated for copies of the s/w? ;-)
Purely as a matter of interest (ahem) can the GP/GM300 be programmed onto
the 446 freqs? I know some varients can cover that range but can they get
right on freq or would they be 1.25KHz off etc?
Always wondered...
Cheers,
Jon.
Jon Harris
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:b5v74vge9dtpjk291...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:42:55 -0000, "Jon H"
> <jon.p.harr...@bt.com> wrote:
>
> >Purely as a matter of interest (ahem) can the GP/GM300 be programmed onto
> >the 446 freqs? I know some varients can cover that range but can they get
> >right on freq or would they be 1.25KHz off etc?
>
> even when on the right frequencies and with the right audio deviation
> level and power output level, they remain illegal to use until type
> certified for that band. Then again... Considering you can now buy
> a pair of 446s for less than £30, who would bother.
Who? I imagine those naughty souls who like to add beams and have 25w...
Cheers,
Jon.
Paul
<jon.p.harr...@bt.com> wrote:
>Purely as a matter of interest (ahem) can the GP/GM300 be programmed onto
>the 446 freqs?
The GP300 can.
Paul
Jon Harris
news:mj3c4vkfp5t8nmuu4...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2003 00:07:06 -0000, "Jon Harris"
> <jon.h...@DEADWOODclara.co.uk> wrote:
> So buy a 446, fit it with a BNC and plug that into your 25W PA and
> beam.
True, but it's a bit of a bodge, and it'll probably cost more if you start
with a 446 radio with a decent receiver.
Still, it's all a bit academic given that it's not allowed anyway!
Cheers,
Jon.