On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:37:43 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:09:08 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :
snip
I see that -you- aren't talking about politics anymore because you
refuse to accept any facts;
What you consider "facts" is the whole point of contention.
They are facts sourced from the very same source that says Bush got an
honorable discharge. Care to dispute the source? I didn't think so.
So why do all the libs cry that Bush's honorable discharge was somehow
"bought"? See, both sides can make up all sorts of stories to explain
the "facts".
But I digress, this thread is not about politics.
e.g., the fact here is that you are
looking at the wrong rule:
Am I?
This is where the controversy is. Your assessment is valid, and it
would seem that since the FCC has allowed ETS signals on FRS radios,
(which also fall under part 95) that it would also stand to reason
that they would allow them on class "D" CB as well. The question is
why have they not made their position clear in the form of a rule
modification?
FRS radios have such tones because they are permitted by this rule:
"Sec. 95.193 (b) The FRS unit may transmit tones to make contact or
to continue communications with a particular FRS unit....."
CB radio has an identical rule:
"Sec. 95.412 (b) You may use your CB station to transmit a tone
signal only when the signal is used to make contact or to continue
communications....."
But you failed to print the entire rule subpart. Why this is
significant I will explain after I post it in its entirety:
"(b) You may use your CB station to transmit a tone signal only
when the signal is used to make contact or to continue communications.
(Examples of circuits using these signals are tone operated squelch
and selective calling circuits.) If the signal is an audible tone, it
must last no longer than 15 seconds at one time. If the signal is a
subaudible tone, it may be transmitted continuously only as long as
you are talking."
Now, when you look at the rule, it becomes clear what the intent of
this rule is. They are defining selective calling units, that operate
either with CTCSS or dual tone (paging style) squelch systems.
Lafayette used to sell them from the 1960's into the early 70's.
You might be able to infer that this rule also applies to roger beeps,
but you have to remember that this rule was written long before roger
beeps were even heard of on CB radio communications.
Bull****. Roger-beeps have existed, legal or not, on the CB since the
band was barely a few months old.
I NEVER heard a roger beep on CB until the early 80's. They certainly
were not around in 1970 when I first got on the band.
Now, I'm not saying that some clever tech type didn't invent one, and
used it in some local pocket somewhere. But their use was not
widespread, or I would 've heard them it, especially when the skip
rolled in.
I will concede that the rule is open to a wide variety of
interpretation. It is conceivable that you MIGHT be ok if you use the
roger beep strictly as an ETS signal. The minute you start making
multiple tones, musical notes or otherwise, you fall into the category
spelled out by 95.413, prohibited transmissions subpart 6 and 7:
(6) To transmit music, whistling, sound effects or any material to
amuse or entertain;
(7) To transmit any sound effect solely to attract attention;
Damn liberals.
You really have become consumed with politics. Have I rattled you that
much?
So it should be obvious that if any radio with a "roger-beep" is
accepted, the tone is considered to be a tool that is used to
-facilitate- communications, a purpose which is consistent with the
above rule(s).
The question remains, with the exception of the Galaxy, there are no
other domestic radios with this built in feature. If the rule was so
cut and dry, then why not add another selling point?
How about because the service was intended to be a cheap-&-easy way to
get 2-way radio comm? There were literally hundreds of models WITHOUT
a control for RF gain, delta-tune, SWR, etc, etc. And the FCC used to
cite people for nothing more than failure to comply with the time-out
rule. So would -you- have included it in a radio? I doubt it.
None of this is valid today. Even if you despise the art of marketing
and capitalism, the fact remains that bells and whistles sell
products. A roger beep is not a difficult thing to add to a radio (and
not expensive), yet it will add perceived value as another "feature"
to justify an increased price for.
Besides, I never said that *all* radios should have it. But yo would
think at least the flagship radios from all the big name manufacturers
would include this "feature" as another sale item.
And another fact: I brought this same issue to your attention almost a
year ago..... in -THIS- newsgroup.
I remember the discussion. I believe it was Bert who provided the
picture of his Galaxy radio with the FCC ID number which you initially
looked up and couldn't find, and then claimed that the radio's Roger
beep was an "add-on" accessory..
I made no such claim. Look up the thread and read the FACTS, Dave.
Oh, how easily you forget Frank. Here, read this:
=====START PASTE OF FRANK'S POST=========
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
From: Frank Gilliland - Find messages by
this author
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 06:54:51 -0700
Local: Wed, May 26 2004 6:54 am
Subject: N3CVJ claims Roger Beeps illegal
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
In , Frank Gilliland
wrote:
In , "AKC KennelMaster"
wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 24 May 2004 22:57:29 GMT, "Bert Craig"
wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
Riddle me this then Batman, why are there no type accepted LEGAL CB
radios produced with a roger beep or an echo?
Sorry Dave, my old Galaxy DX-949 came stock woith a roger beep...and
was/is
FCC type accepted.
http://www.galaxyradios.com/cb/949.html
Would you happen to to have the FCC I.D. number of that radio? That
radio, other than the roger beep, also has variable power, something
else no other legal CB has. I have my doubts that this radio is
entirely legal.
Dave
"Sandbagger"
Wrong again, Dave. Here's the link: http://www.galaxyradios.com/2547.html
There are no current equipment authorizations for any Galaxy CB radio.
Search the database yourself if you want:
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/c...ericSearch.cfm
Well, by golly, I goofed again. The FCC ID number is C2R-DX-2547, it's
a Ranger, and it is legal for CB. But what I didn't see on the Galaxy
website was a built-in roger-beep -- instead the board is available as
an accessory.
-----=
Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers
=====END PASTE OF FRANK'S POST======
Now, what was that you were saying about facts Frank?
That was back when you were on my side, before you found out that I'm
one of those "evil" capitalist loving conservatives who still believes
in personal responsibility.
I'm still on your side, Dave. The difference we have is that you
refuse to look at -political- issues from both sides of the coin.
Sure I do Frank. It's just that I believe that conservatism is the
better path to follow, and I will support my side of the coin, and
expose the hypocrisy of the other side.
Apparently your problem is migrating to CB issues; i.e, your false
claim about me stated above.
It's not so false as you may think.........
Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj