|
|||||||||
|
Welcome to Class A Drivers Forums
Already registered? Login above
OR
To take advantage of all the site's features, become a member of
the largest community of Truck Drivers. The advertising to the left will not show if you are a registered user. 
|
Board Regular
The Technicians license doesn't require Morse Code, although if you get Technician w/CW (ham slang for Morse Code) you get access to more frequencies that use CW as the main means of communication.Originally Posted by chubyboy
Board Regular
Care to cite because as long as you have access rights to the 2nd band (Usually 10 meter) on your license their shouldn't be a problem.Maybe you should look a little deeper in the regulation about dual band CB's.
kc0iv
Senior Board Member
The problem isn't using it on the 10 meter ham band. The problem is it can't be used on the CB band. The number one problems is it isn't type accepted by the F.C.C. Which is required to transmit on the CB band. Plus, a ham can not transmit on the CB channels. In order to use the CB channels he/she must conform rules used on the CB channels. His/Her ham license does not cover the CB channels.Care to cite because as long as you have access rights to the 2nd band (Usually 10 meter) on your license their shouldn't be a problem.Maybe you should look a little deeper in the regulation about dual band CB's.
kc0iv
kc0iv
Member
The thing about threads such as this that worries me are the radio natzis that tend to take it upon themselves to notify the FCC about such things and tattle on the drivers with big radios.
Senior Board Member
Uhm... 11 Meter (CB Band), does NOT require a license, there is no regulation stating that your radio equipment cannot broadcast on 10 and 11 meters, just so long as you have the license to broadcast on the 10 meter, and that your radio only puts out a maximum of 4 watts on 11 meter. Just about every dual band radio out there is factory tuned to only put 4 watts on 11 meter, and 50 watts I believe for 10 meter.The problem isn't using it on the 10 meter ham band. The problem is it can't be used on the CB band. The number one problems is it isn't type accepted by the F.C.C. Which is required to transmit on the CB band. Plus, a ham can not transmit on the CB channels. In order to use the CB channels he/she must conform rules used on the CB channels. His/Her ham license does not cover the CB channels.Care to cite because as long as you have access rights to the 2nd band (Usually 10 meter) on your license their shouldn't be a problem.Maybe you should look a little deeper in the regulation about dual band CB's.
kc0iv
kc0iv
Personally, I think the entire debate is just stupid, the FCC could give two craps about people on 11 meter, and the only time they do is when someone is going around pushing thousands of watts going over every speaker, TV, touch lamp in town, and or splashing over into illegal frequencies. If you got a radio pushing 200 watts on 11 meter, and it is setup correctly, and there is minimal interference they don't give two craps, period.
Now as far as people operating dual band radios and talking on unlicensed frequencies, no they should not be doing so, but don't bash the radio, bash the operator.
Member
Yes I hear very little about the FCC going out and investigating anything unles there are complaints about someone bleeding over someones TV etc.
But there are people out there that do nothing but search for "illegal" sales of radios or look for reasons to tattle on people.
I don't operate on the 10 meter side and have not felt the need to do so. Everyone I want to talk to is on the 11 meter side.
But this 4 watt thing for CBs is kind of a joke. Alot of factory CBs deadkey 4 watts but swing to a peak of 8 watts or more. I had a factory 29 that would swing to 8 watts peak and it had not been touched.
Senior Board Member
My 29 tuned, did 8 watt dead key, and 40 watt peak.
Member
My 29 tuned, did 8 watt dead key, and 40 watt peak.
Ya, I am waiting on my Stealth Cobra 29 nigh****ch to get here. Done by a very well known CB shop that is not your normal Smoke and Mirrors shop and it is peaking 55 watts.
Senior Board Member
Seem the F.C.C. don't agree with you.
Did you notice "use devices" and "shall not be operated,......"Section 302(b) of the Act provides that “no person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.” Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission’s implementing regulations provides that:
no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency device unless … in the case of a device subject to certification, such device has been authorized by the Commission in accordance with the rules in this chapter and is properly identified and labelled as required by § 2.925 and other relevant sections in this chapter.
In addition, Section 2.803(g) of the Rules provides that radio frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally operated “shall not be operated, advertised, displayed, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed ….”
All equipment must be certify to be used on 11 meters (CB). No 11/10 meter radios have been certify. So any operation on CB channels is illegal. Operation on 10 meters requires a ham license.
To my knowledge none of the "10 meter" radios we are discussing (out of the box) have the ability to operate on 11 meter (CB). They have all been modify to work on 11 meters (CB). Or have been modify to operate on 10 meters. There is NO dual band radio that is factory tuned. They have all be modify.
Citing from other sections.
Now as to me. I could less if you want to use your duel bander. Make the biggest noise you want on CB. The only problem I have is the guys that operate in the CW portion of the 10 meter band. And even with that it isn't a major problem. When I'm on 10 meters CW my filter will hear through this nonsense. Beside most are mobile and are gone in a very short time. I know I'm causing them more problems with my 1000 watt linear than they cause me.Section 301 of the Act requires that no person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio within the United States except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license. Section 95.404 of the Rules states that CB operators do not require an individual license to operate a CB station because they are authorized by this rule to operate in accordance with the rules in this subpart.
Section 95.409(a) of the Rules requires that CB operators use an FCC certificated CB transmitter at their CB stations. Section 95.409 of the Rules also states that use of a non-certificated transmitter voids your authority to operate your station.
Section 95.410(a) of the Rules states that CB station transmitter output must not exceed 4 watts carrier power. Section 95.410(c) of the Rules also states that use of a transmitter which has carrier power in excess of that authorized voids your authority to operate the station.
kc0iv
Senior Board Member
A properly tuned AM transmitter will not change power output with modulation. If the output power changes then it is over modulating the carrier. Which most CB transmitter do I might add. The exception to this is if you are using a peak reading meter. Then you will only see the peak level and not the carrier.
kc0iv
Member
************************************************** **********My 29 tuned, did 8 watt dead key, and 40 watt peak.
Ya, I am waiting on my Stealth Cobra 29 nigh****ch to get here. Done by a very well known CB shop that is not your normal Smoke and Mirrors shop and it is peaking 55 watts.
I thought you might like to see just ONE of quite a few hits against CBers and their illegal radios! Note the power level of this one!
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) )
) In the Matter of ) File Number EB-07-TP-095
Richard Ross ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732700011
Titusville, FL ) FRN: 001-73713-29 ) ) )
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Released: March 31, 2008
By the District Director,
Tampa Office, South Central Region,
Enforcement Bureau:
I. Introduction
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Richard Ross, apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, that Mr. Ross is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
II. BACKGROUND
2. On June 4, 2007, in response to complaints of interference, agents from the Commission's Tampa Office of the Enforcement Bureau ("Tampa Office") inspected the Citizens Band ("CB") station located at Mr. Ross' residence. During testing of Mr. Ross' equipment, the agents determined that two of his CB radio transmitters were non-certificated transceivers, capable of transmitting on unauthorized frequencies. The agents also measured the output power for his transmitters and found them to be operating with seven and eight watts, respectively, output powers greater than authorized in the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). The agents orally warned Mr. Ross that use of non-certificated or modified equipment capable of transmitting on unauthorized frequencies and with greater power than authorized is strictly prohibited by the Rules and voided his authority to operate the CB station. Mr. Ross voluntarily surrendered both devices to the agents.
3. On July 10, 2007, in response to additional complaints of interference, the Tampa office sent an official letter, certified and regular mail, to Mr. Ross, restricting his hours of operation for his CB station. Specifically, the letter instructed Mr. Ross not to operate his CB station from 6 AM EST to 11:59 PM EST. On July 11, 2007, the Tampa office received a response to the official letter in which Mr. Ross claimed he was now in compliance with the rules.
4. On August 16, 2007, agents from the Tampa Office inspected Mr. Ross' CB station to confirm that his CB station was in compliance with the Rules. The agents found that Mr. Ross' CB radio station included a CB transmitter and two linear amplifiers. The agents measured the power of the CB transmitter and found it had an average power output of 3.5 watts carrier power. They tested the amplifiers combined power output and found the devices had the capability to boost the power of the station to several hundred times the authorized power level. The agents orally warned Mr. Ross that the use of linear amplifiers or any device that creates a power greater than the authorized limit is strictly prohibited by the Rules and voids the authority to operate the CB station. Mr. Ross voluntarily surrendered both linear amplifiers to the agents.
5. On November 20, 2007, in response to additional complaints of interference, at approximately 10:15 A.M., agents from the Tampa Office located the source of a strong signal on a CB radio channel using direction finding methods to Mr. Ross' residence. An agent recognized the voice of the transmissions to be that of Mr. Ross.
6. Still on November 20, 2007, agents from the Tampa Office inspected Mr. Ross CB station. A wattmeter measurement indicated the power of Mr. Ross' transmitter during the inspection to be two watts, under the maximum authorized power under the Rules. The agents then traced the coaxial cable from the output of the transmitter and found it was connected to a linear amplifier. Measurements taken with the amplifier connected to the CB transmitter indicated the amplifier had the capability to boost the power of the station to several hundred times the authorized power.
7. Still on November 20, 2007, the agents observed an open notebook. The notebook showed log entries that indicated that Mr. Ross made several long distance calls using his CB radio during that morning. The entries coincided with the times the agents, using direction finding techniques, traced transmissions originating from Mr. Ross' residence. The agents orally warned Mr. Ross that the use and possession of the linear amplifier and operating out of the authorized hours prescribed on the official letter issued on July 10, 2007 violated the Rules and voided his authority to operate the CB station.
III. DISCUSSION
8. Section 503(b) of the Act provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply substantially with the terms and conditions of any license, or willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule, regulation or order issued by the Commission thereunder, shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The term "willful" as used in Section 503(b) of the Act has been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or omissions are committed knowingly. The term "repeated" means the commission or omission of such act more than once or for more than one day.
9. Section 301 of the Act requires that no person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio within the United States except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license. Section 95.404 of the Rules states that CB operators do not require an individual license to operate a CB station because they are authorized by this rule to operate in accordance with the rules in this subpart. Individuals operating, pursuant to this provision, however, must operate their CB stations in accordance with the rules in this subpart.
10. Section 95.409(a) of the Rules states that you must use an FCC certificated CB transmitter at your CB station and that the use of a transmitter, which is not FCC certificated voids your authority to operate the station.
Section 95.410 of the Rules states that your CB station transmitter power output must not exceed ... under any conditions: 4 watts (carrier power). Use of a transmitter which has carrier power in excess of that authorized voids your authority to operate the station.
On June 4, 2007, agents from the Tampa Office determined that Mr. Ross operated his CB station with two non-certificated transmitters that had a power output of seven and eight watts (carrier power), respectively. On June 4, 2007, Mr. Ross was warned that operation of his CB station with a non-certificated transmitter and with a power level greater than authorized violated the Rules and voided his authority to operate his CB station.
11. Section 95.411(a) of the Rules states that you may not attach external radio frequency (RF) power amplifiers to your certificated CB transmitter in any way. Section 95.411(b) of the Rules states that there are no exceptions to this rule and that use of a power amplifier voids your authority to operate the station. The Commission will presume that you have used a power amplifier if it is in your possession and if there is other evidence of overpower operation.
On August 16, 2007, and on November 20, 2007, agents from the Tampa Office observed that Mr. Ross had attached linear amplifiers to his CB station. Immediately prior to the inspection on November 20, 2007, the agents observed Mr. Ross' CB station in operation. On August 16, 2007 and November 20, 2007, the agents determined that the amplifiers attached to Mr. Ross' CB station had the capability to boost the power of the station to several hundred times the authorized power level. On August 16, 2007, and November 20, 2007, Mr. Ross was warned that attaching linear amplifiers to his CB station violated the Rules and voided his authority to operate his CB station.
12. Section 95.423(a) of the Rules states that if the FCC tells you that your CB station is causing interference for technical reasons you must follow all instructions in the official FCC notice. Section 95.423(b) of the Rules states that you must comply with any restricted hours of CB station operation which may be included in the official notice. On July 10, 2007, the Tampa Office sent an official letter, certified and regular mail, to Mr. Ross. In the official letter Mr. Ross was instructed not to operate his CB station from 6 AM EST to 11:59 PM EST.
On November 20, 2007, the agents observed Mr. Ross operating his CB station out of the authorized hours (approximately 10:15 AM) established in the July 10, 2007 official letter.
13. Because Mr. Ross violated several sections of Part 95, Subpart D of the Rules, Mr. Ross voided his authority to operate his CB station pursuant to Section 95.404 of the Rules. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 4, August 16, and November 20, 2007, Mr. Ross willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmitter, his CB station, without authorization from the Commission.
14. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operating without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the statutory factors to the instant case, we conclude that Mr. Ross is apparently liable for a $10,000 forfeiture.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, 0.314 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Richard Ross, is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violation of Section 301 of the Act.
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Richard Ross, SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
17. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment[s] by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be sent to:
Chief Financial Officer -- Financial Operations,
445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
Washington, D.C. 20554.
Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures.
18. The response, if any, must be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, South Central Region, Tampa Office, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1215, Tampa, Florida, 33607 and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.
19. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices ("GAAP"); or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted.
20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular mail, to Richard Ross at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 301. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b). Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1), which applies to violations for which forfeitures are assessed under Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term 'willful', when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this Act...."
See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991). Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(2), which also applies to violations for which forfeitures are assessed under Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term 'repeated', when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day." 47 C.F.R. S: 95.404. 47 C.F.R. S: 95.409(a). 47 C.F.R. S: 95.410. 47 C.F.R. S: 95.411(a). 47 C.F.R. S: 95.411(b). See 47 C.F.R. S: 95.410. 47 C.F.R. S: 95.423(a) 47 C.F.R. S: 95.423(b) 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. S:1.80. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 301, 503(b), 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 0.314, 1.80. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission
There's more 'busts" for $10,000 of late than you think. Most of them ARE for dual use radios like the so-called "10 Meter" radios, amps, and operating on "them extree channels" that BELONG to other users. Well, the other users are getting tired of it and it has resulted in some $10,000 fines. Kinda funny when that old CB myth about "FCC don't care what CBers do turns around and bites 'em in the butt!!
RR
Member
So posteth one of the "Big" radio natzies.
Member
sounds like he likes losing money in radio equipment....
Member
That and it sounds like this MR Ross had some ill tuned equipment that was interfering with the neighbors toys.
He could have been fine if his equipment was not interfering with the neighbors or others in the area.
It was not the extra power that was creating his problem it was more then likely the fact that he was bleeding over on everything due to improper tune causing him to bleed over many different frequencies.
Many times the FCC doesn't do much unless their are complaints about such things or unless some radio natzi turns the person in.
Senior Board Member
The single biggest problem, when dealing with the F.C.C., is to ignore their request. Makes no difference if the person is a ham, CBer, or a commercial operator. The F.C.C. is no different than any other law enforcement officer.That and it sounds like this MR Ross had some ill tuned equipment that was interfering with the neighbors toys.
He could have been fine if his equipment was not interfering with the neighbors or others in the area.
It was not the extra power that was creating his problem it was more then likely the fact that he was bleeding over on everything due to improper tune causing him to bleed over many different frequencies.
Many times the FCC doesn't do much unless their are complaints about such things or unless some radio natzi turns the person in.
In times passed there were a lot of complaints to the F.C.C. from neighbors who had hams living nearby. The first thing the F.C.C. did was determine if there was a ham in the area. If one was found the F.C.C. would send that ham a letter requesting assistance in determining what was the cause of the interference.
The normal response, for the ham, was to contact local testing committee and get their assistance. Once the testing committee determined the cause the ham advised the F.C.C. of the testing committee results. If the testing committee determined the cause to be the ham's fault they worked with the ham to correct his/her equipment. If it was determined to be a problem with the neighbor's equipment they would normally contact the neighbor and advise him/her of their finding. In many cases the ham would supply and install the necessary filter ever though he/she is not required too.
The single biggest problem with the CBer is most do not have the technical ability nor do they have fellow CBer that can work as a testing committee to determine the cause. I might also add very few CBer know how to properly tune a CB. Over modulation is a common cause of equipment not being tuned correctly.
As in the case of the one posted by radioray he added to his own problem by NOT following the first F.C.C. order. Anyone with basic common sense would know any additional complaints would be reported to the F.C.C. It would appear this guy didn't care and thought he could do whatever he wanted. The end results he is out $10,000 unless he can prove he can't pay.
kc0iv
Member
Well, they OUGHT to be turned in! It is quite interesting to note that the CB "hobbiests" actually cause more real problems with their radios than ALL the other radio users combined with one exception. The illegal broadcasters. That is the fault of a Congress that removed the FCC's funding in the 80's. That's when the outlaw CBers began showing up on the bands surrounding the international amateur allocations. They thought that, with coMputers, cellphones, and email, CB would just wilt and die (we couldn't BE so lucky :evil: ). Most of it DID dry up as the general public went for the cellphones and electronic wizardry. What was left, except for a small niche, was a cadre of unthinking outlaws that were
entrenched in the "CB culture" and couldn't be satisfied with CB as it was meant to be and, worse, they had to have everybody else's frequencies, too! :evil: Next thing you know, there's these stupid "10 Meter 'ham' (yeah, the h--ll they are) radios" with "bands" of.........guess WHAT! CHANNELS!!!!!!!!!OH GOODY, GOODY MAW, AH GOTS ALL THEM THAR EXTREE CHANNELS THAR! :evil: Of COURSE, everybody isn't a raging CB outlaw and most CB ops actually use theirs for what it was intended for. It's the ones that turn screws and snip and clip stuff, LOUD and "PROUD (so THEY think), and think they gots dem rah'ts to tawk on them thar "spay-shul channels thar---[u]THEY DESERVE TO GET NAILED FOR THE NEW FCC RATE SCHEDULE THAT JUST WENT TO EFFECT------$18,000 PER OCCURANCE!!!!!!!!!!!
Some may think there's "radio nazi", etc, but why do you think that IS?? BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF FINDING PEOPLE ON
THEIR FREQUENCIES!!!!!!!! The CB ops need to stay WHERE they BELONG because, um yeah, the folks "them channels" belong to will be MORE than glad to drop a dime to the Feds in a skinny minute. :x Just ask:
DD & J Trucking
Quality Carriers
Superior Carriers
UPS
FedEx
Teeberry
Dowell Express
Con-Way
Grady Randolph
Sferra Metals
Smith Trucking
Carl Vincent
CLR
Cassidy's Express
Derek's Trucking
Eric Dollar Trucking
George Cairns
Auto Elite Transport
Shuford Lumber
STI Towing
Trip Wilson Trucking
R & L Transport
Jolly Roger
Mark Hansen (non truck)
That's just a few! And it was "them radio 'nazis" that went out and documented the people DOING it!!!! I'm sure they'd even help you write out your $18,000 check!!!!
RR
Member
Well, they OUGHT to be turned in! It is quite interesting to note that the CB "hobbiests" actually cause more real problems with their radios than ALL the other radio users combined with one exception. The illegal broadcasters. That is the fault of a Congress that removed the FCC's funding in the 80's. That's when the outlaw CBers began showing up on the bands surrounding the international amateur allocations. They thought that, with computers, cellphones, and email, CB would just wilt and die (we couldn't BE so lucky :evil: ). Most of it DID dry up as the general public went for the cellphones and electronic wizardry. What was left, except for a small niche, was a cadre of unthinking outlaws that were
entrenched in the "CB culture" and couldn't be satisfied with CB as it was meant to be and, worse, they had to have everybody else's frequencies, too! :evil: Next thing you know, there's these stupid "10 Meter 'ham' (yeah, the h--ll they are) radios" with "bands" of.........guess WHAT! CHANNELS!!!!!!!!!
Some may think there's "radio nazi", etc, but why do you think that IS?? BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF FINDING PEOPLE ON
THEIR FREQUENCIES!!!!!!!! The CB ops need to stay WHERE they BELONG because, um yeah, the folks "them channels" belong to will be MORE than glad to drop a dime to the Feds in a skinny minute. :x Just ask:
DD & J Trucking
Quality Carriers
Superior Carriers
UPS
FedEx
Teeberry
Dowell Express
Con-Way
Grady Randolph
Sferra Metals
Smith Trucking
Carl Vincent
CLR
Cassidy's Express
Derek's Trucking
Eric Dollar Trucking
George Cairns
Auto Elite Transport
Shuford Lumber
STI Towing
Trip Wilson Trucking
R & L Transport
Jolly Roger
Mark Hansen (non truck)
That's just a few! And it was "them radio 'nazis" that went out and documented the people DOING it!!!! I'm sure they'd even help you write out your $18,000 check!!!!
RR
Senior Board Member
All I got is a stock Cobra 29 with a roger beep and talk back on it. I was listening to the radio the other day and there was a guy on there talking about 4 or 6 pill with 600 watts. I keyed on there and said "Who the hell needs 600 watts?, 125 watts is plenty if you want power and to get out!" Like I said mine is stock and gets out about 10-15 miles which is fine for me since I mostly just listen. If I was to put power to it I'd only run a 125 watt kicker.
Member
But then we have to admit that there are Radio Natzis out there that browse around looking for a reason to try and get someone shut down even if they were not interfering with the Ham radio Natzi or anyone else.
I see alot of Hams that do these types of things just because they self appoint them as the "Radio Police" because they went and got a liscense to operate their high powered equipment and they don't like it when a BIG CB gets on the air even within the 1-40 channels.
But as far as discussing big power and over modulation etc. Funny stuff there. There are many quality radio shops out there that can create sceaming 11 band radios that are not over modulated and bleeding all over the place.
Senior Board Member
I think you will find most hams could care less what CBer do on 11 meters. In fact most don't even listen to 11 meters. I go so far as to say the majority of hams don't even own a radio that can tune in 11 meters and those that do don't turn-in on CB.
Where the problem comes is when ham hear CBer on 10 meters. Then many will find-out who these CBer are and turn them in. As I said the other day I could care less. I can operate right through the CBer and cause them problems than they cause me.
As to quality radio shops. Yes their a few. But I think you would admit the vast majority of radio shops are not. Most don't even own the equipment to properly tune a transmitter. And even fewer own a modulation meter to set the modulation level. It's the old whistle into the mike trick. I have yet been in a radio shop that even knew what a two tone test was. Let alone how to use it.
kc0iv
This ad will disappear if you login
Posting Permissions
| Trucking
Companies | Trucking
Job Search | Online
Job Application | Trucking
Links | Truck Drivers
Message Board | Contact
Us | Site Map
Truck Driving Jobs © 2003 - 2012 ClassADrivers.com |
Reply With Quote