Sidebar Sidebar
  • You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.

Part 95 Rewrite

Mudfoot

Mudfoot

Elmer
Jun 17, 2009
10,928
6,298
698
62
Southeast Ohio
This is the first I've heard of these proposals.

Possibly outlawing 11 meter beams. Although, the ARRL has recommended directional antennas be left alone due to pattern nulls.

Relaxing GMRS rules.

I bet they end up busting GMRS down to UHF CB status. No repeaters either.

I must be under a rock. GMRS will suffer most, but is rarely used around here anymore.
 
Last edited:

Posted Back in 2010.

If you use FRS/GMRS/CB, this effects YOU

Anyone that uses FRS, GMRS and CB should read it.
This will effect you.
Some of it is good stuff, some of it is not.
They are asking the public (you) to comment on proposed rule changes that will effect you.
If you enjoy CB you should read the proposed rule making.
Should they prohibit directional antennas?
Should they allow Sky-wave use?
If you ever wanted to have a voice about something the FCC is doing, here is your chance.
How many guys want to pull down there Shooting star beam?
Or your 3 Element flat side?
The words
"Therefore, we seek comment"
You can bet the guys that would Love to see Cb go away, or get even more restricted will be commenting.
Don`t miss your chance, find a reason, and tell them why it would serve the public's interest to continue to allow directional antennas or Sky-wave, or why the should NOT reduce the power output of Cb radios, point out how TV has changed and is Less prone to interference, or that most users have gone to cable, instead of reducing power, make a rule change to use a low pass filter instead of banning directional antennas ....
Think and voice your opinion, or things will change with out you being heard.
Click to expand...


73
Jeff
 
I haven't read the proposal and doubt I'll bother.

I have little concern that there will be much or any enforcement or any new restrictions and s to allowing skip talking....well just who the hell can help or stop that situation anyway.

Any CB beam owner can always get the easy Tech license which has 10 meter SSB privileges and claim the beam is for 10M.

Going back to my nap now
9.gif
 
Last edited:
The directional antenna rule shouldn't even make it into the proposal, and the 155.3-mile limit should be eliminated altogether.

There's not enough usage to justify an expansion of frequencies and as far as the rest of the Class D service is concerned, it's fine as-is. No need to impose additional restrictions, which would likely be unenforceable regardless.
 
I think the bubble pack radios with FRS/GMRS capabilities kinda ruined GMRS.

The beam discussion is irrelevant. FCC can't afford to enforce much of anything anymore.
 
As stated by WW; the ruling about beam antennas is a stupid as it is un-enforcable.

No one can tell the difference between a 10m beam and an 11m beam.
In truth, I use my 11m beam on 10m and it works excellent.

For the FCC to make this statement is just more proof that they are prejudiced against those who use the 11m band and are in a bind, stupid rage lashing out however they think they can. That is the real problem; they failed to realize what so many of already know about this proposal. Their laws are our laws too. Unless they get representation and input from the CB community, they will continue to miss the mark!
 
ROBB.

Unless they get representation and input from the CB community, they will continue to miss the mark!
Click to expand...

Back in 2010, Two years ago they said THIS:

The words
"Therefore, we seek comment"
You can bet the guys that would Love to see Cb go away, or get even more restricted will be commenting.
Don`t miss your chance, find a reason, and tell them why it would serve the public's interest to continue to allow directional antennas or Sky-wave, or why the should NOT reduce the power output of Cb radios, point out how TV has changed and is Less prone to interference, or that most users have gone to cable, instead of reducing power, make a rule change to use a low pass filter instead of banning directional antennas ....
Think and voice your opinion, or things will change with out you being heard.
Click to expand...

They were ASKING the the Public.....the GMRS, FRS and CB Community's to Comment about the proposed rule changes.
Don`t you think that if Every guy that has a CB radio voiced there opinion that it was time to increase the power restriction on CB to 100 watts that they might take notice?
Or that it was Time to Drop the 155.3 mile limit?
How many people use CB? GMRS? FRS?
That is a lot of letters, E-mails, and phone calls.


73
Jeff
 
One of the things they invited comment about, was :

16. We seek comment on whether the current power limits for each Part 95 service continue to be appropriate, and if not, on how they should be changed. If commenting parties support higher powers for certain applications, they should explain the technical basis for the higher power and provide an analysis for the associated impact on interference potential.
Click to expand...


CB, is a Part 95 service.


57. Section*95.413(a)(9) prohibits communications or attempted communications with any CB station located more than 250*kilometers (155.3*miles) away.1 The purpose of this rule is to ban CB radio communications using sky wave propagation, because the Commission intended CB radio to be used for short-distance communications.2 CB radios operate in the upper portion of the high frequency (HF) band, where radio wave propagation includes two modes, direct and sky wave. Direct waves move along the earth’s surface, while sky waves reach the ionosphere and then reflect (bend) downward reaching long distances. CB stations can communicate by direct waves with other CB stations within approximately 15*miles at all times, and also with stations up to several hundred miles away via sky wave propagation, provided solar conditions permit.3 When conditions for sky wave propagation are favorable, it may actually be easier to communicate with distant stations than closer ones. This presents a unique problem with allowing a “commons” band regulatory structure4 in the HF band that allows the capability to transmit over long distances. Section 95.413(a)(9) can be a difficult rule to enforce because regular CB radios are capable of communicating over hundreds of miles without any attempts to modify their operations. Nevertheless, this ability to communicate over long distances has tempted some to use illegal linear amplifiers and directional antennas to see how far they can communicate. Such operations can result in harmful interference to television operations, as well as other services in the HF band. Therefore, we seek comment on how best to deal with this natural phenomenon. Amplifiers for CB stations are already illegal, but should we consider prohibiting directional antennas for CB operations in order to facilitate its intended use for short range communications? Should we consider power reductions for the CB Service? Is there harm in allowing CB operators to communicate in sky wave mode, or would such an allowance tempt the use of illegal amplifiers which cause interference? We seek comment on how best to deal with section 95.413(a)(9) and other challenges in permitting a “commons” band regulatory structure in the HF band.5
Click to expand...

We seek comments on how best to deal with this....
The Answer:
Abolish the 155.3 mile rule.


They The FCC Asked:

Is there harm in allowing CB operators to communicate in sky wave mode,
Click to expand...

The Answer,
NO.
They cited TV interference as the principle problem:

We note that in 2000, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau denied a petition for rulemaking to amend this limit. See Amendment of Section*95.413 of Commission’s Rules Prohibiting Communications or Attempts to Communicate with Citizens Band Radio Services Stations than More than 250 Kilometers Away, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18828 (WTB 2001), recon denied, 16 FCC Rcd 14825 (2001). We remind CB operators that the use of RF power amplifiers to facilitate sky wave propagation is a principal source of interference to TV reception and remains illegal.
Click to expand...

It could be argued that now that TV has overall gone to a Digital mode, and the use of Cable TV supplied over shielded cable the chance of interference is less than it was before the change, therefore there now would be no harm in allowing the removal of the 155.3 mile limit as well as the use of properly built 100 watt Amplifier`s .


Robb, I am not Aiming this directly at you, but they did ask for input, and the general answer they got was;

No answer.
The general line of responses to the thread that was posted was:
Who cares, they are going to do what they want anyway......

73
Jeff
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Exactly Jeff. The FCC did indeed ask but people were too busy ignoring them about everything that they failed to actually take the time and listen to what the FCC was saying. The time to speak up has come and gone.
 
I see.

OK; then every CB radio forum can start a concerted effort to have a thread that gives the info necessary to contact that representative(s) in gov't - directly.

It is all in their best interest - the everyday CB radio 'Joe' - to consider this. The internet can make this goal easily attainable. The email address of the representative can be distributed by forums.

Thanks for the info; I should have read the original statement rather than the comments.

My bad . . .
 
Last edited:
JEFF -

Robb is 100% right about this. There should be a section on the forum dedicated to any proposed rule changes by thr FCC affecting amatuer, cb, FRS, whatever. Whenever they (the FCC) ask for public input, the proposed changes (and how/where to respond) should be permanently displayed on the forum until the time to respond has expired.
I visit the forum almost everyday, but somehow missed the entire thread about the Comission asking for public input. Even though FCC rules don't affect me now, as a US citizen I would have wanted to respond. 73s.

- 399
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.


      Top Bottom
      Back