Keep your 40 channel CB folks

Submitted: Friday, Feb 03, 2017 at 21:04
ThreadID: 134239 Views:2870 Replies:8 FollowUps:12
This Thread has been Archived
Found this story today:

CB Ruling

Great news....
Back Expand Un-Read 3 Moderator

Reply By: Shaker - Friday, Feb 03, 2017 at 21:41

Friday, Feb 03, 2017 at 21:41
Commonsense prevailed ....... for once!
AnswerID: 608252

Follow Up By: The Explorer - Friday, Feb 03, 2017 at 23:43

Friday, Feb 03, 2017 at 23:43
Just once?


Cheers
Greg
I sent one final shout after him to stick to the track, to which he replied “All right,” That was the last ever seen of Gibson - E Giles 23 April 1874

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

0
FollowupID: 878012

Reply By: Zippo - Saturday, Feb 04, 2017 at 00:44

Saturday, Feb 04, 2017 at 00:44
ACMA haven't actually canned the requirement for narrowband/80-channel equipment. What they have inferred is review/relaxation of the timetable.

Best is to read the info on the ACMA site here where it seems there is going to be a discussion paper and "consultation":

"The ACMA invites comments on the issues set out in this discussion paper.

Area for feedback 1

Are there any reasons why the ACMA should not allow for the continued use of wideband CBRS equipment beyond 30 June 2017?"

My own best guess (after a career of involvement with ACMA) is that there will be an extension of time. Without getting into the technicalities of 40-vs-80 (or 12.5kHz vs 25kHz spacing), the ABC article is - not surprisingly - inaccurate to suggest that the two different spec sets can coexist without issues.

And for the pres of the NRFA to say he had "only became aware of the issue a couple of weeks ago and he advised his members then." is unbelievable. He must have been living in a cave for the last ten years.

AnswerID: 608256

Follow Up By: Member - Scott M (NSW) - Monday, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:39

Monday, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:39
Zippo, your last point was my reaction exactly. What rock have these guys been hiding under for the last 5 or more years???? This has been an active and ongoing discussion on most 4wd, Caravan and Camping forums for ages.
0
FollowupID: 878073

Reply By: Member - Boobook - Saturday, Feb 04, 2017 at 07:09

Saturday, Feb 04, 2017 at 07:09
As Zippo says, the ABC article misquotes ACMA.

However they now have a draft recommendation out for comment that proposes dropping the rule that bans 40 Channels.

This is crazy and everyone should put in a submission asking that the law does not change.

ACMA page

1)Those who have complied with the law are now being punished.
2)Channels 41 - 80 are generally clear of the swearing and abuse present in the older channels, unless those users are close. Now this will continue past July.
ACMA is leaving the UHF community half pregnant, with a system that is subject to interference. This is exactly what they are supposed to stop.

So now the situation is that if there are 2 or more people with 80 channel radios then there is no interference and it works. Same if everyone in the same area has 40 channel radios. But if one or more have 80 channels and using channels 41 - 80, and one or more with 40 channel radios then they interfere with each other with garbled talking.

It's like the government is changing from driving on the left side of the road to the right, with a deadline of July. Now they stopped the change and say doesn't matter what car you have, just drive on the side of the road that you prefer.

It is crazy not to proceed. They have the 4wd community half pregnant.
AnswerID: 608259

Follow Up By: Member - Ross N (NSW) - Saturday, Feb 04, 2017 at 10:56

Saturday, Feb 04, 2017 at 10:56
Hi Boobook,
From point 2 in your quote can it be inferred that the range of the new UHF's is not as great as the old 40 channel one?
Ross
0
FollowupID: 878017

Follow Up By: Member - Boobook - Saturday, Feb 04, 2017 at 12:08

Saturday, Feb 04, 2017 at 12:08
Hi Ross, what I said certainly implies that doesn't it.

There is no real difference between the range of a new 80 channel UHF or an old 40Channel unit.

I meant to say this.

Generally the new upper 40 channels are not used frequently, so less swearing etc. However because the upper 40 channels use some of the same space as the old 40 channels, when someone with an old 40 channel radio talks and they are close, you can hear it on the new channel that uses that space, in this example channel 80.

In other words there is interference between different channels when new 80 channel and old 40 channel units are within range of each other. This was always known but going to be a temporary issue until July 2017.

Now it will be a problem forever.

2
FollowupID: 878019

Follow Up By: Zippo - Monday, Feb 06, 2017 at 00:11

Monday, Feb 06, 2017 at 00:11
Several years ago in my role as a professional radio engineer in WA-govco I had to try explaining the impact of mixing wideband and narrowband equipment in an environment not unlike UHF CB. For that task I threw together a simple graphic which helped with the non-technical user audience.

To help with this discussion I changed the frequency info to correspond to UHF CB channels.

UHF CB 40 vs 80 channels

What should be fairly clear is that the two systems do NOT "peacefully coexist". They interact and interfere. My field experience backs this up, and I suggest that anyone believing the opposite has had a very limited exposure to the mix.

------------------------ caution - techo stuff follows -----------------------------------
[In early discussions with ACMA it was suggested that turning down the deviation on 40-channel transmitters (reducing the occupied bandwidth to match the NB channels) would aid the conversion/migration, but it would not alleviate the receiver bandwidth issue. That would require expensive receiver mdification.]
4
FollowupID: 878064

Follow Up By: Nomadic Navara - Thursday, Feb 09, 2017 at 13:05

Thursday, Feb 09, 2017 at 13:05
"Hi Boobook,
From point 2 in your quote can it be inferred that the range of the new UHF's is not as great as the old 40 channel one?"

Those two points are Boobook's and are badly worded or not true. I think what is implied in that statement referrs to the adjacent channel only being a problem when the interfering transmitter is close to the receiver. When the wanted signal is more than 20 times the power of the interfering signal then the capture effect in the receiver eliminates any interference.

His first point "Those who have complied with the law are now being punished" is a fallacy. No one is being punished when they purchase the new wideband equipment, they are just helping to get better order on the CB spectrum. Some perceive they are being got at, they are just the ones with a victim mentality.

PeterD
Retired radio and electronics technician

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 878157

Follow Up By: Nomadic Navara - Thursday, Feb 09, 2017 at 13:10

Thursday, Feb 09, 2017 at 13:10
Zippo, that is an excellent attachment you have provided. It explains the situation well.

I have been on both the user side and working with the regulators over my working life. I can assure members that it is a fact of life. CB users tend to be a little more scattered than those on the two way radio bands. The commercial users tend to be affected by the adjacent channel interference more than the CBers.
PeterD
Retired radio and electronics technician

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 878158

Follow Up By: Member - Boobook - Thursday, Feb 09, 2017 at 17:52

Thursday, Feb 09, 2017 at 17:52
Peter please read my post prior to yours where I did highlight the wording.

And sure people who went out and bought a new 80 channel, for no reason other than the new rules wasted their money if there is no requirement to do so now. That is like a $250 fine for complying with the law IMHO.
1
FollowupID: 878159

Follow Up By: The Explorer - Thursday, Feb 09, 2017 at 20:17

Thursday, Feb 09, 2017 at 20:17
Look on the bright side - if you bought an 80 channel unit and still have the 40 in the shed you can now sell it on eBay (or ExplorOz classifieds) and get some of your money back.

Cheers
Greg
I sent one final shout after him to stick to the track, to which he replied “All right,” That was the last ever seen of Gibson - E Giles 23 April 1874

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

1
FollowupID: 878161

Reply By: Member - Stephen L (Clare SA) - Saturday, Feb 04, 2017 at 07:22

Saturday, Feb 04, 2017 at 07:22
Hi Colcam

It might sound ok, but what most of the general public are not aware of, is that way back when the 80 channel radios were first introduce, part of the requirements were that manufacturers were no longer able to supply spare parts to keep the old 40 channel radios going.

You might think, that's ok, it will not affect me.....but not so. One of the biggest issues that we encounter at work from station people, farmers and truckies is the most important part of the radio.....the microphone.

You would not believe the number of mics that get chewed by dogs, sat on and broken, dropped or just have been worked to death. Try an buy a replacement microphone for an old and you will hit a brick wall. The only way we have been able to overcome this very basic issue is use a very experienced technician who has all the spare parts and can get most things working again.

Try doing this in the big smoke and they will tell you bad luck and sell you a new 80 channel unit.




Cheers




Stephen
Simpson Desert Colours

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 608260

Reply By: Robin Miller - Saturday, Feb 04, 2017 at 10:53

Saturday, Feb 04, 2017 at 10:53
The basis for continued use of 40 ch sets is essentially that no harm is done and there are other mechanisms for resolving any issues that may arise.

I submitted my position to the AMCA as below.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a professional radio engineer , amateur radio operator and user of the 40 & 80 channel UHF CB system I have observed no particular issue with the co-existence of the 2 band plans.

There are in excess of 50 40 channel sets in our group and upgrading for no real benefit would incur considerable expense.

I would recommend we allow the continued use of the 40 channel equipment.

Such use will also naturally reduce over time!
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 608263

Follow Up By: Colcam42 - Saturday, Feb 04, 2017 at 11:34

Saturday, Feb 04, 2017 at 11:34
All as I know is that I still use ch 40 when travelling and haven't noticed any difference in Tx or Rx when talking to truckies or wide load escorts. Yes a bit of squawk when the traffic is farther away but in normal range, seems ok. But what would I know, I always believe what I read in the paper or hear on TV, :-)
1
FollowupID: 878018

Follow Up By: Member - Boobook - Saturday, Feb 04, 2017 at 12:10

Saturday, Feb 04, 2017 at 12:10
If both new and old users are using the same channel then it is fine. However if a 40ch user is on say 18, and a new 80 channel user is on 58, there is interference all right. Try it. This was a known issue until July 2017, now it will be an issue forever.
3
FollowupID: 878020

Reply By: The Bantam - Monday, Feb 06, 2017 at 00:10

Monday, Feb 06, 2017 at 00:10
The problem with this who issue is the pretty much complete inability to enforce a ban on 40 channel radios.

ACMA have barely enough resources to investigate and enforce serious spectrum abuse ...... so they got bugger all chance of enforcing a 40 channel ban

cheers
AnswerID: 608313

Reply By: Michael ( Moss Vale NSW) - Monday, Feb 06, 2017 at 06:23

Monday, Feb 06, 2017 at 06:23
I didn't realize the cut off time was July and having said that, I had no plans to replace it. I didn't see the need and finally the hand wringers don't seem to now either! Michael.
Patrol 4.2TDi 2003

Retired 2016 and now Out and About!

There's time to rest when you're dead,
Get out and do something instead!

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 608316

Reply By: Member - Andrew - Wednesday, Feb 08, 2017 at 17:57

Wednesday, Feb 08, 2017 at 17:57
I bought the best radios I could, both handhelds and vehicle mounted only to have the 80 channel thing announced a short time later. I can't afford to throw away that investment in good gear for some esoteric reasoning by an organisation that has done nothing about clearing out the on air cowboys.

Maybe this is an acknowledgment that they are powerless to resolve the issues.

Regards

A
AnswerID: 608386

Follow Up By: Shaker - Wednesday, Feb 08, 2017 at 23:01

Wednesday, Feb 08, 2017 at 23:01
I would happily pay a licence fee if I thought it would help to get the foul mouthed bogans off the air!
I am no angel & probably swear as much as the next person, but not on air where people's kids & wives are listening.

1
FollowupID: 878151

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)