"Phil Kane" wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:29:30 GMT, Bert Craig wrote:

This is actually not such a bad idea. I've always supported dropping the
155.3 mi. limit on CB and the idea of allowing hams to reduce their power
and elmer CBers on channels 36 through 40 USB on the finer point of DXing. I
think it'd be a great recruitment tool, just MHO.

If you espouse the above, it is evidence that you have no
understanding about what CB is supposed to be for and you cannot
keep ham radio and CB separate as they should be.

What you are describing is hamming, not proper (some call it "legal") CB
operating.

One of the odd things about the animosity between CB and ARS
users, is that here in Alaska CB was a *very* beneficial service
used pretty much as intended in most Alaskan locations.

Because I worked in the (long distance) telecom business, the
places where I've lived were always communications centers, and
CB was never popular in those areas. But I also spent a lot of
years traveling to nearly half of the villages in Alaska... and
in many villages for many years CB was the way people kept in
touch with their neighbors until roughly 1980 or so, by which
time telephones had been installed in almost all villages. But
even after that happened CB remained very popular in many
coastal areas with perhaps the single exception of here in
Barrow (larger boats, mostly used for whaling, were and still
are commonly equipped with VHF marine radios here).

During years of higher sunspot activity the skip that was
experienced on CB was a general nuisense to most Alaskan users
because it generated an unnecessary racket where the radio was,
and interfered with monitoring for significant (perhaps
emergency) traffic from neighbors.

Between cell phones and VHF radios, I don't think anyone on
Alaska much cares anymore what they do with CB regulations.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)