On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:02:16 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:57:00 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 04:57:04 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:04:53 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:03:11 GMT, SideBand wrote:


[6] to transmit music, whistling, sound effects or any material to
amuse or entertain;


It's illegal because any form of free entertainment or amusement is a
direct attack on the free-enterprise system by the liberals who want
to weaken the corporate stronghold on the entertainment industry. So
the US government (whose sole purpose is to "protect, facilitate and
represent our interests in the world market") has disallowed any free
entertainment and amusement in non-profit venues, including CB radio.

How could you not see that, Dave?


Give it a rest Frank. We're not talking about politics anymore.


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.


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.

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;




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?

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..

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.


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj