Jump to content

Talk:Citizens band radio

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old Comments

[edit]

Isn't it strange that it has GMRS, but no FRS? Ilyanep 17:44 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, and it was not properly characterized (FRS, GMRS, MURS). These services and CB are part fo the FCC's Personal Radio Services (PRS). It use to be Citizens Radio Services since 1957 - BUT the public could not understand or differentiate that title from Class "D" service - so FCC changed the division’s name (reducing ambiguity). http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=personal_radio

The origianl Class "D" and Class "E" sections had significant errors (not supported by the FCC filing and ruling records). I softened wording - for proper context -- since it comes across to this reader as "anti-amateur radio". Class "E" requirements were actually met in 1980s with 3 new services. The 220 MHz band is not generally available to the public (globally) - so this would have been an economic barrier for affordable radios (global mfg.) to public in 1970s. The UPS allocation (arm twisting in Washington DC) menioned in 1993 did get some 220 MHz bandwdith (as did another service at 218 to 219 MHz. These frquencies are not well utilized (economics again) - and FCC forced UPS to use a narrow bandwidth system (not FM, SSB, or AM) -- much to the embarrassment of UPS. G. Beat 21:56 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but wasn't channel 19 the default channel for most truck communications, not just traffic moving in certain directions?JesseG 03:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Back in the 1970s channels 19 and 21 were both trucker's channels. If I recall correctly, 19 was for east/west and 21 was for north/south. When I was truck driving in 1996 and 1997 channel 19 was the trucker's channel thoughout the country. However, I think channel 21 was still popular on Interstate 5, perhaps to avoid interference with State Route 99. Rsduhamel 19:42, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't channel 3 the main channel for boats equipped with a CB radio?

JesseG 18:47, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In Australia they have a seperate Marine CB band which is a little higher up the frequency spectrum. Petedavo talk contributions 22:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see more about CB-like services in other countries. In the UK they have a 446 MHZ service that's unlicenced. And I bet Japan has some interesting radio hobby services, too. I'll have to dig up my old magazines from the period and see if I can identify when 40-channel gear first turned up in quantity. --Wtshymanski 23:32, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Somebody needs to verify that Popular CB Channels section. --141.156.47.42 20:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CB in Movies

[edit]

I really don't rememeber the use of CB in the movie Die Hard. I thought they were just 2-way FM radios - not CB.

To the best of my knowledge in Die Hard the bad guys use kenwood handy's, as well as in Die Hard 2. Since kenwood only produces for amateur of professional bands it is unlikely that they would have covered CB.

John McClain gets on the radio and says something like "channel 9 channel 9!" Then it cuts to a scene in a police station where the female cop responds to the call. Anymore doubts?

Channel 9 can be an assignment on a 16 position radio for the Land Mobile Radio (LMR) Service - just as it is for a Citizens band radio (27 MHz). Nope, not 27 MHz CB - LOOK at the length (wavelength and frequency have inverse relationship) of the radio's antenna used - physics answers this question - looks like a UHF radio (GMRS service is at 462-467 MHz/UHF). G. Beat 21:56 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In Die Hard, the handhelds are obviously not CBs, but when they show the dispatcher on the other end, she has what looks like a Cobra CB base station.

Channel 9 on CB is typically at the time of the making of Die Hard considered the Emergency Channel for CB, which was monitored by Police stations nationwide (hence the 911 operator responsed to the call). So in effect it could be CB radio even though the equipment used (McClain's hand held) could have been a VHF/UHF transmitter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.156.42.129 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 9 is still reserved for emergency communications, though even at the time that movie came out it was unlikely the police in a big city would be monitoring it directly. The point is that in the plot of the movie, it's a CB, but in reality the radio doesnt look like a CB and doesn't work like a CB. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other, derogatory terms

[edit]

Does it make sense to mention the other terms sometimes applied to CB, such as "children's band" or "chicken band"? N0YKG 21:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would depend on how you present it ;)

I am not very familiar with wiki. With a situation like this cant we just remove it. --Rek4385 (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't 14 the main calling channel?

[edit]

Breaker, breaker 1-4; 1 4 for a copy? DavidFarmbrough 13:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in Britain, on the 27/81 channels. I think that was a USA reference about 11 being the calling channel. While i read long ago in a book on CB that 11 was an unofficial calling channel, i've never seen it used IRL as such. I'd suggest relegating 11=calling to a historical note. -- anon, 07 Jan '05

Here's your answer. Way back in the early 1970's when CB was illegal in the UK, British CB'ers used 11 as a calling channel (just like the Americans) but were forced to move to 14 because of interference from legal equipment on the same channel. When CB was "legalized" in 1981 they continued to use 14. Apgeraint 14:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a Picture...

[edit]

What a dirty radio, you'd think someone would wipe the dust off of it before taking a picture and putting it in the encyclopedia. Anonym1ty 17:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

replace the picture!

[edit]

If I could, I would take a product shot from some place online and submit it instead of that ugly dusty radio, but I can't, so it's up to the other users to take a freely usable picture of a CLEAN cb radio and replace that dusty POS picture.

I'm here to say the same thing. How about a photo of a CB radio in a truck cab, or one of a mint Cobra 148 or President Lincoln. Not a dirty old rig on someone's bed, please! --kingboyk 03:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it is a horrible picture. i may have a better picture, i will check. if i dont i'm sure someone else looking at this does. also technically a president lincoln is not an american c radio ;). A president washington or a cobra 2000 would look great on this page though. 08:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I have a good photo showing a base station in new condition with a D-104. Many CB'rs have bigtime base set-ups with "extra" stuff if you know what I mean. Should I post it? JungleCat File:Texasflaginstate.png 23:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much better picture. Great job! Phauge 04:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
that is a beautiful picture, great looking rig you have there Lenn0r 02:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

huge Australian CB history section?

[edit]

It's enormous. Why not create a separate "CB Radio in Australia" article? --141.154.25.91 16:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. But I looked at doing it and decided it needed a bit more thought and discussion rather than merely cutting out the Australia paragraph, because the whole article could do with deciding whether it's "CB radio" or "CB radio in the United States". And either way, there's a bit of Australian stuff outwith the main paragraph. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 09:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. That would take much time and thought to "separate these twins". JungleCat File:Texasflaginstate.png 15:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, and here is a tidbit that can be reworded and added to the new article

    Australia can be proud of being the first Country in the world to produce the world's very first UHF CB radio. Phillips' FM320 will be put into production this year and be available early nest year (1978.) Australia's largest manufacturer of mobile two-way radios has unveiled its $112 million UHF CB gamble. A 40 channel, compact and lightweight rig designed and built in Australia. Working prototypes were shown publicly for the first time at the National Citizens Radio Association CB Convention in Canberra early this month. The prototypes, which are worth about $50,000 in design and research, are almost identical to the units that will be available early next year. The company's specially set-up CB research section was still experimenting with modifications to the design. The FM320, which operates on the newly allocated 476 MHz Ultra High Frequency CB Band, is based on the more powerful and more sophisticated FM747 commercial UHF rig. And despite skepticism throughout the CB industry, Philips maintains the price of the FM320 will still be around $300, subject to sales tax increases. Philips entry into the CB market with a UHF unit has been a gamble from the start. It took a punt that the UHF service would be introduced on the CBRS.

    There's an online version of this on http://www.acbro.org/remember.htm. Good luck with it.Petedavo talk contributions 22:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Australia can be proud of being the first Country in the world to produce the world's very first UHF CB radio. Phillips' FM320 will be put into production this year and be available early nest year (1978.)"

They were about 30 years late in making that claim. What about the original Class D UHF sets in the United States? 91.125.210.60 (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CB usage in the United States

[edit]

I'm going to go for it and split this off to a new article. The main article has gotten too long to manage. Squidfryerchef 17:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references

[edit]

I'm moving some books from the References section to here for the time being. Based on the edit history, I think they were added as sort of a working bibliography. I'm moving their bibliographic information here until someone uses them as a source. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizens%27_band_radio&diff=63694925&oldid=63524200

  • Franklin, Lou (1996). Understanding & Repairing CB Radios. Tucson, AZ: CBC International. ISBN 094313224X.
  • Franklin, Lou (2005). "Screwdriver Expert's" Guide to Peaking Out & Repairing CB Radios. Tucson, AZ: CBC International. ISBN 0943132398.

Squidfryerchef 17:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred J. Gross

[edit]

I added a link to Alfred J. Gross in the See also section. Since he was the inventor of the original technology, maybe there should be a bit about him in the History section? --cslarsen 10:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Squidfryerchef 16:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found this tidbit of info in an old mmagazine

Phineas Thadeus Veeblefetzer who is also known as Al Gross, was never confined by technical limitations as an Electronic Scientist during the 1930's.

In 1938 he built a small transceiver with a range of 60 kilometers using the 300 Mhz band.

After developing and improving the idea and after discussions with Jack Jet of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided that this would be a good thing to give to the public so that citizens may appreciate the benefits of public radio.

In 1944 the FCC issued Al with the experimental CB licences no. WIOXVX and WIOXVY so that Al could continue with the concept of a possible introduction of a Citizen's Band Radio Service.

On March 22nd in 1948, in Cleveland, Ohio in the U.S.A., Al succeeded in meeting the FCC specifications which he helped lay down.

The FCC gave 460 Mhz to 470 Mhz to the public and within 3 months Al received $5,000,000 worth of orders from the public for his 465 Mhz CB sets.

Thus, was born the Citizen's Band Radio Service and the rest is history.

The very first “legal callsign” ever issued to a person for use on the Citizen’s Band Radio Service was 19W0001 and in fact, is still current, issued by the FCC.

Who was it issued to? Who else? Mr. Al "CB" Gross.

I also found the same in an online source here http://www.acbro.org/inventedcb.htm Petedavo talk contributions 21:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian UHF CB?

[edit]

I condensed the material on Indonesia and added a couple sources. However, I removed mention of the UHF band because the other sources I looked at only mentioned a 27 MHz band and a VHF band, no UHF. Squidfryerchef 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

freebanding section

[edit]

is it US centric in the sense that - aren't those frequencies legally used in areas outside of the US? El hombre de haha 06:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I toned it down a bit. I wouldn't say that the section is US-specific as it is now, because even in countries that allow more frequencies, they still have people who go outside the band. Squidfryerchef 02:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While finding a cite for it would be difficult, it might bear mentioning the underground semi-industry that served CB radio people who were running illegally. Back in the day, the terms for radio modifications were: "Freaked", "Peaked" and "Slid". "Freaked" referred to fooling the PLL chip responsible for frequency generation into generating channelizations either below channel 1 or above channel 40. "Peaked" referred to making the transmitter finals output at levels above 4 watts AM, or 12 watts PEP (Peak Envelope Power) for single side band. "Slid" referred to a modification where the clarifier, on single sideband radios, was tied into the transmitter and the circuitry modified to increase the sweep of the clarifier- Thus allowing a defacto ability to freely tune from well below the legal CB band to well above the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.215.224.137 (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License requirements and effect on radio control modeling

[edit]

The FCC required a Class C license for CB radio. The cost was $20 for seven years. Also I believe when the CB craze hit, CB was reserved for business use and was illegal for personal use even with a license. Many people were flying radio control airplanes on 27 MHz at the time but were forced to move to the newer 72 MHz band for safety reasons. WAB Houston 17:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Class C was for model control and Class D was for 2-way voice. At the time, yes the FCC didn't allow "ragchewing". It wasn't exactly business use only but there had to be a purpose for each transmission. There's more about model aircraft at CB usage in the United States. Squidfryerchef 21:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small case for "band"?

[edit]

Why is the title "Band" in small case? Shouldn't it be in upper case? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally on the Wikipedia, only the first word in titles is capitalized. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But "Citizens' Band" is a proper noun. See the google search results =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, they still usually only capitalize the first word. Except if it's a person's name. I know this is not the usual English capitalization, but they usually do this on WP for some reason which escapes me. ( Perhaps it's in the style guide someplace? ) Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global tag

[edit]

I have re-added the {{global}} tag. CB may have originated in the US, but a lot of countries have licensed it out. This article lists only four countries, and does not have the global breadth required for it to be neutral and balanced. This article should be about CB across the world. US centric information would be in history. Additional details go in CB usage in the United States. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The global tag is worthless. If you know enough about the topic to realize it is not covering a world-wide view, then you know enough to add that world-wide view to the article. It's a polite fiction that the Wikipedia can cover the whole world; notice the complete lack of contributors from, oh, say, anywhere in Africa. Don't tag, add content. Tags are a way of saying "I've noticed something wrong with this article but I won't tell you specifically what it is and I'm far too important and busy to fix it myself, but now that I've pointed out what you've missed, I'm sure you will go fix it, now that I've condescended to rub your nose in the problem." If an editor feels moved to add content, he or she will; not all your tagging will add a single line. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. How did you come to the conclusion that the tag is worthless? When you say that wikipedia lacks contributors from Africa, that's exactly the point the global tag is supposed to address: that the article does not cover a global perspective. Why are you afraid to host the tag may I ask? If I know something, I can add content to the article, but that does not necessarily make me the expert in the subject, or that my contributions will give a global perspective. These tags are meant for a purpose, not for individual editors to pull them down on their own whims. I request you to revert your edit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument about the global tag being worthless can equally be applied to any other tag, from Template:NPOV, to Template:Wikify - if no editor wants to add the content, no tag will do anything. However there really are editors who are interested in "fixing" articles with specific problems. That's what the tags are for, they draw attention from those who are interested in fixing them. "It's a polite fiction that the Wikipedia can cover the whole world; notice the complete lack of contributors from, oh, say, anywhere in Africa." - like all politeness it's a very useful fiction. For example, I'm from nowhere near Africa, and have very little specific knowledge about it, but that didn't stop me from writing short articles about Shoshong or Engaruka, or the Uganda National Rescue Front, or Yoruba literature, just because Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias asked that these articles be created. Unless you genuinely disagree the article needs globalization, leave the tag up. --GRuban (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts on globalize

[edit]

So, I was the one who originally reverted the globalize tag. Reason being, the article is not perfect but it contains quite a bit of information on CB outside the United States. The "History" section might only have three other countries, but the "Frequencies" section covers the EU, talks about unique bandplans in the UK, Germany, and Poland, then it goes on to Canada, New Zealand, Japan.

So I thought it was pretty well globalized as it is. If someone wants to add information about a specific country we've missed, that's fine. But the globalize tag is usually for articles of global importance that only have information about a single country ( usually the US or UK given the demographics here ).

This article also used to have an external link to a page which covered the personal radio services for various countries around the world, so if someone saw in our article that, say, Germany has some unique frequencies they could go to that site and see an entire table. It also had countries that this article doesn't cover (yet) like India and Brazil. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The globalize tag is not discriminatory. The fact that New Zealand and Japan have a single line mention does not mean that the article has the global depth. The article takes a rather condescending view of countries outside the US. "CB Frequencies Worldwide", In Poland (and probably some other former Warsaw Pact countries)..." This article is very poorly written. It should 1. Talk about what is CB radio 2. CB radio history (origins in US, and spread across the world). CB radio in popular culture across the world. The article should not be colonized by US stuff. The logic you cite in the summary is also perplexing. The internet was "invented" in the US, does that mean it should only cover mostly the US? The tag needs to stay up. Oh and yes, there is information on India. See Citizens Band radio in India, I had written it a few days before, but I was caught up with Amateur radio in India which is on FAC. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just added frequency info and some questions to Citizens Band radio in India. As far as being global, note that 27 MHz CB was around in North America for about two decades before it started being authorized in Europe and Asia. The "History" section looks very US-specific at first clance but that's true only up to 1980 or so. A lot of that information is relevant to the rest of the world because it shows how the bandplan developed which most countries follow. The odd spacing of some of the channels got that way because of vagaries in the US regulations. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microphones

[edit]

I'd like to add something about choices in microphones - some, like a noise-cancelling microphone, legitimately improve the communication effectiveness of a CB radio, others like an echo microphone have purposes which are forever beyond my understanding. I'd like to include something about the varying levels of effectiveness of choices in acessories; really, every CB radio is technically the same so to individualize and personalize, hobbyists seek out "decorations" like more buttons and lights, more meters, and (perhaps ill-chosen) customizations like sound effects. I don't have a good reference for this, and I'm afraid anything I write would sound pretty patronizing. There's got to be something out there written on whatever drives us consumers to buy "power mics", fuzzy dice, chrome muffler tips, and special turntable bricks; our consumer yearnings overwhelm our understanding of electronics. "Fetishization of technology" is probably more of an essay than an encyclopedia article, though. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The popular culture section is really cluttered up. A lot of those movies and songs just barely reference CB radio, or show it being used once or at best in a way that is incidental to the movie and not a prominent theme. Do we really need to list every film where a CB is used and every song with a reference, no matter how oblique, to CB? For example the Tracy Lawrence, Beck, and Pixies songs should clearly go, and maybe several of the others. Same with most of the movies after 1978 (the last of those films where CB is really central, instead of just incidental, is Convoy). Does anyone else agree that the section should be cleaned up? For a song to be included it should probably both have CB as its central theme, and be sourcable as having charted on either the Billboard pop or country singles chart. As for the films, I would move for deleting everything after 1978's Convoy unless a source can be cited that the film is primarily about CB radio, as opposed to one in which CB merely appears once. Anyone else agree or disagree here? 96.239.145.54 (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. I suppose there is some value in referencing popular culture as there was an era when CB was very much part of said culture. However, the current list is out of control and needs a clean up. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 20:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*-plex not useful

[edit]

IEEE Std. 100 says

simplex operation (1) (radio transmitters) A method of operation

in which communication between two stations takes place in one direction at a time. Note: This includes ordinary transmit-receive operation, press-to-talk operation, voice-operated carrier and other forms of manual or automatic switching

from transmit to receive.

A reader who knows what "simplex" means doesn't benefit from using it in the lead, and someone who doesn't know what "simplex" means will be annoyed. Let's take it out and say what we mean instead of using jargon. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the source of the confusion is that in radio, people follow the ITU definition, while in wireline communications, people follow an ANSI or CCITT definition, which originated in telegraphy. Because this is an article about radio, it should follow the radio definition. It belongs in the lead so it can be contrasted with other types of radio systems that are full-duplex ( mobile telephone ), half-duplex ( taxi ), or repeaterized or trunked ( police, etc ). The general public should be fine with this; the only reason it's even an issue is because a lot of our editors are computer people and only know the datacom definition. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word is a bit of technical jargon but may assume too much background knowledge in the reader - explain "simplex" later on and don't snow the reader too much in the lead. If we really unerstand something, we can explain it to our grandmothers. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Simplex" or "half-duplex" (whichever you decide is correct) belongs in the lead; the article now lacks any mention of the one-way-at-a-time nature of communication, which is a defining attribute of CB and of several of the regulations such as the maximum time you may key the mike. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a serious omission and I've tried to fix it now. It's a little ponderous giving a secondary definition in the lead but I've put in two more links for the novice. I really don't like articles that start off "An oompa-loompa is a parnisnipple of vendish felding." where I have to look up so many words in the opening. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not interject "half-duplex" in radio contexts; seems the IEEE Std. 100 dictionary defines "half duplex" in connection with wired circuits, and if the usages vary then we shoud respect the way the terms are used. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better; additional options: (1) the addition would be less "ponderous" if you deleted "Like many other two-way radio radio services," a clause that starts an explanation of the service of interest by reference to services not of interest; and (2) there was a footnote, now deleted, that I had repositioned to the word simplex, which you might consider restoring now: "In wireline communications, where the term 'simplex' is reserved for one-way signaling, this would be considered 'half-duplex' communications." I don't claim the term is correct in the radio context, only that such a footnote might help readers coming from other backgrounds. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That footnote got deleted? That's pretty important. Actually the equivalent of half-duplex communications in radio would be a taxi radio or marine radio making a ship-to-shore call where there may be two frequencies but the radio is only able to receive or transmit at any one time. A repeater is another case of half-duplex. An example of full-duplex would be a cellular phone. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "half duplex" explains anything and isn't relevant to this article; it's a wire-line telegraph term The original point of mentioning that when one station was talking, everyone else had to listen was valid, but adding a treatise on the differences between ITU and CCITT nomenclature is out of place in this article. The IEEE definition of "simplex" talks about communication - information flow - not about the number of frequencies in use. Everybody agrees on "simplex" and that's the way CB radio works. "Simplex" is push-to-talk (example: CB radio), "duplex" is listening while talking (example: cell phone), I'd appreciate a reference showing any other terminology and how it's used in a radio context. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'd only include a brief footnote like we had before; the treatise would belong under the definition of simplex in communications. ( I noticed the "radio" definition was removed from that article at one point. ) The other question is are we writing from the standpoint of user experience or that of spectrum management? The end user doesn't care much whether one or two frequencies are used if they have to push to talk ( until they find out that they can't have a roundtable discussion ). The FCC on the other hand doesn't care who gets to talk but does care whether one or two sets of frequencies are required. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've located and restored the footnote appended to the word "simplex." I don't claim it uses the best wording, but its presence may help you guys devise the best wording. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, if you have to use a piece of jargon in the lead paragraph and immediately have to give an explanation of the jargon, then you should just give the explanation and leave the jargon to another place. The jargon isn't communicating anything to the reader. Two-way radio can go on about the different *plexes and explain the differences between wire line and radio jargon, if that seems necessary - but it's just a buzzword in the lead paragraph of this article.
What may be missing is a physical description of a pair of CB stations (base and mobile) and just how you use a CB to communicate. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is this about "jargon" and which audience are we writing for? Are we writing for people who are somewhat familiar with radio, or are we writing for Dukes of Hazzard fans? I doubt we'd have this discussion if this were an article about the Special Emergency Radio Service. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to US History

[edit]

Recent anonymous edits to Section 2.1 on US History, as well as introducing spelling errors, ramble and suggest factors in the decline of CB radio that are vague and subjective (the Reagan administration?!), emergence of technology (FRS) that actually emerged long after the decline of CB radio, and an assertion that regulations led to disregard of regulations. Commentary on changes to the American culture doesn't belong in a section on the history of the use of CB radio; if these are intended to make a cosmic point, it is unlikely to be provable by citation. The entire section needs a rewrite. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the changes were controversial and without sources. I have reverted to the earlier version. --Elliskev 18:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Boy is still in business & still selling their linears. I removed the reference to Palomar Engineering as it reports no links to Palomar Engineers, Inc. which manufactured the linears until the 1980s. See http://www.palomar-engineers.com/Palomar/palomar.html for more information --BuffBrahma —Preceding undated comment added 05:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

CB vs pirate radio

[edit]

Is it meaningful to talk about CB radio without all the mention of "freebanding" and other activities that have nothing to do with the regulation and original intention of the service? Could we spin out all that into the pirate radio article and just make a general observation here along the lines that "CB was intended to be a short-range communciation sservice for business and personal use, then the pirates came in and destroyed the usefulness of the band for everyone" ? At least nominally, weren't very many of the millions of CB users back in the day at least mostly in compliance with the regulations? For every linear in use on the band, there must have been scores of legal 4-watt sets. Is the illicit use of frequencies in and around the CB band over-represented here?

By contrast, I think it's interesting that FRS hasn't been destroyed by illegal operations (in my limited observation). There seems to be a real bias against "mods" in FRS news groups, and I've never even heard of a "linear" being used on FRS. It can't be technically that much more difficult to get an amplifier these days, and I suspect very many ham radio 440 transcievers can be "opened up" to talk on 465 MHZ; but UHF piracy seems not to happen.No skip to shoot; E-layer scattering is so much more "technical" than waiting for the sunspot maximum. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "freebanding" has been part of the CB culture since before the boom in the 1970s. It definitely fits in here better than it does in the pirate radio article, which is mostly about pirate broadcasting and last I looked was a mess.
There's several reasons why "bootleg" operation happens more around the CB frequencies than for instance on UHF. The temptation to shoot skip is one reason. Another was that in the days when a license was required, it was hard to actually have a conversation and comply with all the rules. There were rules about what you may talk about, some channels were reserved for communications only among units of the same license, and so on.
It's true that many on the FRS groups don't like to discuss "mods". Part of the reason is that just above the 462 FRS range is a set of channels used by ambulances to talk to hospitals. As opposed to the area just above the CB frequencies, which may be allocated to different agencies but is rarely used.
And another aspect is that there probably is a lot of "bootleg" operation on FRS, just that it isn't as noticeable. Plenty of people are using GMRS radios without a license, using modified ham radios, or are using powerful commercial radios with the FRS channels programmed in. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Biased unverifiable article

[edit]

I would like to clean this article up if I had the time. This article is in some serious need of a makeover. I believe it was written from a British stand point which is not a problem but CB radio in the U.S and CB in England differ. There should be two sub categories from CB. Besides that, the article is biased and is opinionated. --Rek4385 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CB radio's Channel 19 in the United States

[edit]

Channel 19 is a phenomena that should have its own article. Its is the unofficial travelers channel in the united states yet it has a taste of pirate radio due to its completely unregulated type behavior. I dont have the time to find sources for an article like this but somebody should create an article for channel 19 27.185mhz. --Mobilewifi (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree..I have been a CB Radio operator for many years and I`m also a Ham Radio operator..the fact of the matter is channel 19 is not only the travel channel but the truth is it`s by far the most used channel on the radio overall in the US..if you scan the entire band it`s pretty much the only channel even used domestically..about all I ever hear on other channels is skip...personal I never understood why they ever went from 23 channels to 40 since virtually everyone is on 19.
There should probably be some kind of list of what other channels may be used for although I don`t hear much on them..there is a motorcycle channel from what I`ve been told but I don`t know what it is..different highways supposedly use different channels but who knows what they are..in the old days truckers used channel 10 and were asked to use 19 to minimalize bleed onto 9 which is the emergency channel..14 is the kids channel...4 is the closest to a standard international frequency 27.005mhz. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
something here about channel 11 being a calling frequency ? Is this a mistake ?2600:1702:2340:9470:41EA:1765:351:3880 (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting frequency listings

[edit]

According to the table on shortwave bands, as well as the table on the instruction manual for my S350DL Grundig radio, 27 MHz is in the 10 meter band. I am new to shortwave.50.103.226.135 (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Also, correct, if needed, the 10 meter band article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.226.135 (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t know the math..CB has always been referred to as the 11 meter band which is more or less internationally assigned as uncontrolled i.e. no one needs a license which is why you hear so much crap on CB..that`s all I know.Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the precise conversions, the lower end of the C.B. allocation at 26.96 MHz is 11.12m and the upper limit of 27.41MHz is 10.94m. So yes, 11 meters describes it quite accurately.
For conversions, use 300,000,000 divided by frequency in Hertz to get the wavelength in meters, or the same constant divided by the wavelength to get the frequency. You can also simplify it to 300,000 with the frequency in kilohertz or 300 in conjunction with megahertz. The exact figure for the speed of radio waves is actually a little less than 300,000,000 meters/sec., but the round figure is generally close enough for most purposes. 87.114.74.243 (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hands free laws

[edit]

So with new laws banning the use of cellphones in cars do they affect the use of car mounted CB radio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.117.68 (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, No. The mobile phone legislation specifies the frequency bands of equipment affected (or exempt - can't remeber which). UK CB equipment falls in one of those bands in which you can hold the microphone (or radio if small enough) while driving.
HOWEVER: you can still be prosecuted for not being in proper control of your vehicle (if you have only one hand on the steering wheel for example). The main point here is: that back in 1981, and indeed right up to the appearance of the mobile phone, no one flagged CB use as a problem while driving a vehicle. 109.145.21.107 (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The U.K. legislation which came into force on December 1, 2003, specifically bans only the use of handheld equipment operating in the frequency ranges of 880-915, 925-960, 1710-1785, 1805-1880 MHz, 1900-1980, and 2110-2170 MHz (i.e. it was specifically targetted at the cellular telephone ranges). The statute is here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/made
46.208.48.115 (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Citizens' Band

[edit]

Citizens' needs an apostrophe! Any reason why the article hasn't already been moved?

Awien (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Citizens Band" doesn't have an apostrophe in the FCC regulations. Many of the apostrophes in this article are unnecessary. --65.101.133.143 (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, the article should be consistent: apostrophes present or absent throughout. 86.184.161.129 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inter- vs. intra-station channels

[edit]

The article currently references Chilton's CB Handbook of 1977 as showing ch. 9 - 15 plus ch. 23 being assigned for both inter- and intra-station use, with other channels for intra-station only.

Howard W. Sams Citizens Band Radio Handbook, 2nd edition of 1964 reproduces the FCC Part 95 rules, which indicate that at that time it was only ch. 9 - 14 plus ch. 23 on which inter-station operation was permitted. Presumably then, ch. 15 was a later addition - When?

I'm not conversant enough with Wikipedia's syntax of adding references etc. to modify, but maybe somebody would like to modify this and add a note with the Sams reference? 12:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.30.223 (talk)

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens Band radio → Citizens band radio – The citizens band is commonly referred to as a generic noun, not proper, so per MOS:CAPS we should move to fix the over-capitalization. Someone mentioned above that evidence for it being a proper name is a google search, but better google evidence says not (the top hits tend to be titles, which are typically caps), but further investigation shows mostly lowercase in text. Dicklyon (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should it be CB?

[edit]

Should this article be at CB radio as the WP:COMMONNAME? I'd wager most people don't even know what "CB" stands for. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Citizens band radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Citizens band radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who said hallo to the moon?

[edit]

Dear readers, in my time as amateur, about 23-25 years ago, I heard of an (English?) radio amateur who sent his signal to the moon and after good 2 seconds heard his voice back again. He called ,,hallooo!" and heard it back. It was in the news then, (and I heard the record of it on tape). Does anyone remember where and who he was? Greets to all, Gerard Rorik, Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.178.42 (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Two points: (1) Amateurs have been using "Moon Bounce" communications for many years.

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%E2%80%93Moon%E2%80%93Earth_communication

(2) There is an old myth about "Long Delayed Echos" which has generated much controversy over the years.

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_delayed_echo

Gutta Percha (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

laura

[edit]

planet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.24.29 (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Citizens_band_radio&oldid=1200925177"