FCC: Out of touch with the global community?

[C W Morse]

But even as late as the 1950s, the FCC continued to justify "unlicensed" access on the grounds that it was purely _intra_state and, because of its limitations, could not have any effect _inter_state effect and therefore fell outside of Section 301.

The FCC continued to state that these devices posed no "interstate " effect because of the power limitations. They were placed under "intrastate" laws. It is by these qualifications the CB was placed with this group. This is how they got Congress to allow "no license" requirement for CB.How can they state at one point they posed no interstate problem ,according to the FCC , because of low power limitations but on the other hand impose a mile limit as though they do ? If they do have "interstate" effect, as the mile limit implies , they then by law need to be licensed. To impose a mile limit on communications seems to imply that "no interstate effect" is accomplished by the compliance of the operator and not (FCC's) their own argument of solely low power accomplishing it. If this is the case any device can be considered as having "no interstate effect".
I see a contradiction myself.

Also=

Congress said nothing about the existing devices operating under the old intrastate theory. In theory, all these devices were now illegal or, at the least, the FCC needed to find a new justification for them. But no one ever made this argument and the FCC never really reexamined its authority.

I wonder if this can be challenged ?

Didn't Dixon try it? Wasn't some of his challenge based on these very things? Honestly, I can't understand why this is such a desperate effort to find SOME way, ANY way to justify
the illegal, and unnecessary use of CB radio? Why is it so important considering that there are other, better alternatives than 27 MHZ CB.

CWM

 

[C W Morse]

Re: o

.

Once again, it is why we have the Amateur Radio ticket with its own set of rules, protocol, and culture that is designed to
promote technical advance, community service, and goodwill among nations. It CAN be used as a hobby, and, to many, IS a hobby by virtue of all the thing contained in it! CB radio is NOT
a hobby in legal terms and never will be.


CWM

Ok here we go again Amateur Radio is not a hobby........
CB is not a hobby.........

But in your own words THEY ARE HOBBYS BY VIRTUE OF THE THINGS CONTAINED IN THEM............................

??????????????When did I say Amateur Radio didn't have hobby aspects? Within the TECHNICAL experimentation along, it implies 'hobby' use which is supposed to contribute to the general advance of radio. CB radio is common carrier, public use
radio for personal business or business use under Part 95.

The main difference is that hobby "chat", or ragchew, is perfectly legal within Amateur Radio and it is legal to do so over long distances. The "things contained withing Amateur Radio" ARE, CAN BE, and SHOULD be considered as hobby use in a LEGAL sense because Title 47 US Code, Part 97 S A Y S it is OK.

I still see no contradition in what I said. :?




And I agree with CHARLEYMARBLES, good will sheeeeeesh the guys across the border not only splatter 27mhz they do it all over the spectrum now thats good will?

 

[Sonwatcher]

why this is such a desperate effort to find SOME way, ANY way to justify
the illegal, and unnecessary use of CB radio?

Sorry to see that is always your perseption. It is not trying to justify something illegal. It is trying to focus on a law that has a lot of questions surrounding its makeup. You continually tell people to try to change laws in the correct way yet you fight any attempt to question a law to do so and put labels on people that dare to question. You make excuses for your fellow hams selling illegal to sell radios or turn a dumb ear to it. This is a discussion board and we are discussing a law that many feel is contradictory and confusing and out dated.I t doesn't hurt to question something. People learn by asking questions when there is something that appears confusing or contradictory and for you to pass judgment on those that sincerely seek answers is very closed-minded.Laws have been changed by bringing focus to discrepancies in the law or out-dated. Or you would still be arrested for spitting on the sidewalk.I have asked you TECHNICAL questions that you have no answer for except to resort continually to law. If you are so consumed with the Law go over to Eham and confront your fellow Hams for their lawbreaking in the same areas you post here such as the above mentioned. Again we are discussing a law that is particular to CB and the reasons behind it and its technical reasons. Please don't continue to pass your judgements on sincere questions or those that sincerely are seeking answers.

Didn't Dixon try it?

Yes he did and was fought by an organization that states it has nor wants anything to do with CB- ARRL.

 

[yama junk owna]

CWM WROTE
??????????????When did I say Amateur Radio didn't have hobby aspects?

You didn't, thats just it you are always harping about how ham is a hobby but cb isn't because it has no legal ground, the point I was making nowhere do you find Amateur as a legal hobby.
But as you said by the virtues of the things that people can do with both cb and ham they have become hobbys more than any thing else. Which brings us back to today, being that both services have evolved from their original purpose why not update the rules to meet what they are anyway, instead of trying to apply 1930's ideas to the world today?

 

[C W Morse]

) The definitions of terms used in Part 97 are:


(1) Amateur operator. A person named in an amateur operator/primary /primary license station grant on the ULS consolidated licensee database to be the control operator of an amateur station.
(2) Amateur radio services. The amateur service, the amateur-satellite service and the radio amateur civil emergency service.
Direct from Part 97, Amateur Radio Rules
(3) Amateur-satellite service. A radiocommunication service using stations on Earth satellites for the same purpose as those of the amateur service.

(4) Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.

(5) Amateur station. A station in an amateur radio service consisting of the apparatus necessary for carrying on radiocommunications.
<snip>

*Quote*

The hobby aspects are contained within Paragraph 4. "Intercommunication", and gist of the paragraph, IMPLY hobby use. It is because of one's interest of the things within Para. 4 that imply 'hobby" if not directly stated.

In the quoted paragraph, I did NOT say that one could LEGALLY do what he wants with CB;it was NOT included in the sentence. Again, read it.

"Once again, it is why we have the Amateur Radio ticket with its own set of rules, protocol, and culture that is designed to
promote technical advance, community service, and goodwill among nations. It CAN be used as a hobby, and, to many, IS a hobby by virtue of all the thing contained in it! CB radio is NOT
a hobby in legal terms and never will be."

Where did I include CB as a hobby radio service? We know it IS used that way and as a substitute for actually DOING something to further the technology of radio, but it is not supposed to be . Again, I stated, "CB radio is NOT a hobby in LEGAL terms and never will be". What I meant by that is, the existing rules are not likely to be ever changed to make CB a substitute, a "merged", or competing service to Amateur Radio. The stated, intended purpose of each is completely different.

To some Amateur operators, EMERGENCY communications is a hobby! To some, building antennas is a hobby, To some, providing communications for muscular dystrophy walks is a hobby, to others, working distant stations (perfectly legal according to Part 97 is a hobby. And, to some, building equipment is a hobby and the ultimate testing of the equipment is a hobby.

CB radio is to be a cheap, somewhat reliable means of keeping in touch with friends and family. It can be used for emergency communications. It is NOT for "working skip", not for building amplifiers with which to increase one's signal strength, not for "extra" channels (that belong to someone else whether they are being heard or not), and not to be construed as an alternative to the Amateur Radio Service. Unfortunately, people SEE it that way and try to merge CB radio with Amateur radio and they are like oil and water: similar, but different.

 

[C W Morse]

Sonwatcher,

There is no technical reason why CB radio is forbidden to talk more than 150 miles except for the potential for interference. Yes, signals can be heard for thousands of miles. Even POLICE radios carry for miles in some cases on VHF. Each and every scenario cannot be accounted for no matter how many rules you pass. I tried to explain the legalities, yes! I even used the analogy of speeding 100 mph in a car. *IF* nothing is in the way and nothing mechanical goes wrong, one can drive 100 MPH for hours............until something enters the equation that the driver doesn't know about. He can't help it if something happens at a speed that has been deemed "safe", but it has been established that driving 100 mph is a bad idea. By the same token, we know that your radio CAN talk 2000 miles. But you don't HAVE to do it. Let's say that it WERE legal to talk anywhere at anytime. First of all, that in itself would create even more interference and noise simply because the restriction is removed. You now have MORE "radios" traveling at
100 mph simply because it is OK to do it. Instead of having 4 watt stations talking 50 miles intentionally, you now have potentionally millions of them, "HOW 'Bout it, you got a copy"? rendering the frequency even more a mess than it is now.

It is as much a LEGAL problem as it is technical. The technical aspects of 27 MHZ makes it necessary to restrict it LEGALLY if it cannot be TECHNICALLY curtailed. Technically, walking around NAKED causes no physical harm, but it might cause someone ELSE to wreck gawking at the sight.

So to finally put this to bed, [/i]TECHNICALLY speaking, other countries DO hear our transmissions. Some of them may not even LIKE it. We do the world no service by opening up the gates on CB radio--my gosh, the thing is already out of the bag, why make it WORSE? And to look at it from the technical aspects, the state-of-the-art has passed CB by. When you can make phone calls from anywhere in the world--even, perhaps, in the deepest forest--send instant messages with a little box too little for manly fingers, scan, copy, fax, and email anybody anywhere, why give CB more when it is really past its prime? Even ham radio, but for its potential for advancing the radio art and emergency comms is technically outdated if you want to be strict. "Citizens Band Radio". It was for Joe B. Public when there were no such things as personal computers and to be used for short-ranged, personal communications with no chit-chat, not "skip talking". Period. Whatever our own take is, CB radio is NOT going to be given legal "Amateur status" like *some* would like. Ain't gonna happen. Just because you wanna doesn't mean ya have-ta!

CWM

 

[yama junk owna]

CW # 4 defines amateur as being for communications.
cb is defined as being for guess what communications in part 95 of the rules.

I still say that there is no language anywhere in the rules of cb or ham that define them as a HOBBY. If you say one is then by the virtues of that statement they both have to be.

It dosen't matter if you like it or not cb is gaining more interest daily while ham is becoming more stagnet, in that it is staying about the same and not gaining any more members.

 

[Sonwatcher]

CW,
You use the interference argument here but when Dixon was heard not one time did the FCC mention interference as a factor.

The technical question I asked was-

How is using a LEGAL 4watt radio that is ALREADY transmitting skip going to harm the frequency ??? It is there whether you , I, or the FCC, or other nations want it there or not. I do not produce anymore interference than what I am naturally producing when I talk local. If the conditions are there I am being heard. The 155 mile rule does not turn off my signal. So how am I producing anymore interference than what is there because of natural conditions

You don't have to respond. It has been a good exchange of ideas.