N3CVJ wrote:
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


Your "side" indicates an intentional adversarial position. Everything
isn't right or wrong and this side or that side of an issue...seeing
everything as black and white is myopic. Stop looking for "sides" in
which to take and stand on your own feet....for once.

From: (Frank=A0Gilliland)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:30:50 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote in
:
snip
did you not read what i wrote twisty?





(I did, and don't call me Twisty. Are you saying that you made a mistake
by claiming you were referring to an illegal modification instead of a
factory design feature?)


Insertion of a fact, here........he didn't write twisty anything.


No you most certainly are starting to become

twistys clone I actually thought he might have

been forging you.



Illustrating that you really are incapable of acquiring new knowledge,
even when it's given freely to you. Webtv can't forge. Webtv can not
change the user name for usenet without changing it across the board,
and even then, the webtv headers remain and so does their IP number. You
may now re-immerse yourself forging mopar and forging my headers to
suit your agenda. You have been effectively and permanently reduced,
Dave.

Actually I was confused


(There shouldn't be any confusion -- Twisty defends illegal radio* and I
oppose it. But that doesn't answer the question: Did you make a mistake?
)



*Too much of a blanket statement. I share my feelings only when asked of
such actions...I guess some can view that as a defense, but a defense
can come only when one is on the receiving end of another who brought
confrontation or attack.
Let there be no doubt of what constitutes "illegal radio" in my
world.... talking dx and the occasional freebanding on select
frequencies located in the freeband, only. No other unlawful activity is
"defended" or participated.


----=3D=3D Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News=3D=3D---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---=3D East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total
Privacy via Encryption =3D---

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:01:29 -0600, "Chad Wahls"
wrote:


I have read the about the amazement of acceptance while including adjustable
power. Dunno, it is bone stock 4/12 watts. I have heard form others that it
is a BEAR to get more channels out of, etc.

It IS a good CB RADIO though. I think it sounds great, really natural and
has excellent receive. Sideband performance is suprising for a Galaxy
although it did need a frequency allignment from the get-go and am
modulation was low (limiter slammed with a tone and only doing about 80%)

That's typical of most out of the box CB radios. The limiters are
usually set conservatively at 85% max.

Microphone preamp is very sensitive, no NEED for a power mic but a better
sounding dynamic is in order to get the best fidelity. With the stock mic I
keep the mic gain at about 1 o'clock to keep the limiter from pumping.

They are not cheap but it has been a good, robust radio thus far.

For the record I would trade my roger beep for an unlocked clarifier in the
law books, anyday, hands down

I'm with you on that one. Until they can find a way to phase lock
everybody's transmit frequency to an exact standard, there will always
be a slight variation in frequency, which you will have to adjust to
every time a different station transmits, if everyone has a "locked"
on transmit receive-only clarifier. When running a roundtable on SSB,
it becomes very annoying in short order.

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

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 03:58:53 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:48:36 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:30:31 GMT, SideBand wrote:

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote:

You should thank Chad, and yes it is there , but using your excuse the
FCC agent who certifys radios ****ed up and let this one slip by, it also
has adjustable rf power which again is not allowed as per fcc rule.

Which Part 95 CB rule disallows adjustable RF power?

I would think that if the radio was only capable of 4W RMS AM Carrier /
12W SSB PEP at the MAX power setting, and was adjustable downward, it
wouldn't be that big of a deal, nor would it make the radio "illegal" or
uncertifiable...

Educate me.



I can't find any reference to a specific rule that either allows or
prohibits adjustable power.

On the one hand, if it were legal......


Oh brother. Once again you demonstrate your attitude that you are
willing to convict based on an absence of evidence.


It would be helpful for you to read my entire point before snipping
the parts that change the context. If you had, you would have seen
that I had "convicted" nothing. I was only bringing up two sides of
the issue.

You are adopting Twisty tactics.

You really are sore aren't you?

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:52:04 -0500, Vinnie S.
wrote:

Could not find them using the C2R prefix but there is a bunch. That board
is used in a bunch of radios and has a PLL that does not like to be modded,
I think that made the FCC happy. Iroic that there IS spots on the board for
another final and support components, a simple call to Galaxy and you can
have a dual final radio in less than an hour. OOPS!!!!!

Correct. This was rather pricey. I think upwards of $60, but not sure. It was
almost more economical to get a small amp.

In cases like this, it's almost always better to get a small amp over
modifying a radio beyond its limits..

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

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:52:04 -0500, Vinnie S.
wrote:

Could not find them using the C2R prefix but there is a bunch. That
board
is used in a bunch of radios and has a PLL that does not like to be
modded,
I think that made the FCC happy. Iroic that there IS spots on the board
for
another final and support components, a simple call to Galaxy and you can
have a dual final radio in less than an hour. OOPS!!!!!

Correct. This was rather pricey. I think upwards of $60, but not sure. It
was
almost more economical to get a small amp.

In cases like this, it's almost always better to get a small amp over
modifying a radio beyond its limits..

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

It's not really beyond the DX2547's limits. There's an ample power supply
in there and the board is already punched, labled and wired for another
final, just needs support components and biased up.

But as stated earlier the gain in power is not really worth the hasle, and
not enough to drive a high drive amp.

More of a bragging right I guess.

Btw, for the technician it is a wonderful radio to work on. The top and
bottom comes off like most mobiles and it's wide enough to sit on it's side
and work on both sides. Only have to clip 2 nylon ties holding the speaker
cable in. There's plenty of room and the super razor sharp edges are kept
to a minimum. I was pleasantly suprised when working on it, the manual is
also very easy to understand and comprehensive.

Chad

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

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:42:57 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
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

OMG!!!!
Frank has an attitude, he's sometimes pompous, arrogant,
but that doesn't make him "On anyone's side".

He was WRT the illegal CB operators and their equipment.


I've had issue's with Frank in the past and will have them in the
future, that's a give me, but to come out here and say "My
side", that's a hoot!

Not if it's true.


A DD214 is a DD214, no matter how you try to dissect it
Dave, so if it says Kerry was discharged, he was discharged.
If federal government records show Kerry's service records,
then it's up to you to prove they were forged (To which I
think no one was contesting they weren't real, just the timeline).
Now like you, I don't like Kerry but at the same time I don't
think Bush is much better, but "I" felt he was the lesser of
three evils, so I voted for Bush.
One thing I've seen about Frank as of late, he doesn't
seem to let his emotions do his talking. He will say what
he believes, without prejudice to which is a very tough thing
to do.

Who the hell is talking about politics? This is about CB radio
legalities.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:57:49 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

N3CVJ wrote:
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


Your "side" indicates an intentional adversarial position. Everything
isn't right or wrong and this side or that side of an issue...seeing
everything as black and white is myopic. Stop looking for "sides" in
which to take and stand on your own feet....for once.

I'm not the one displaying binary thinking. I never claimed that
issues are either ones or zeroes. But there is an overall difference
in philosophy between one "side" and the other, a cumulative sum of
all the individual "issues".

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:40:59 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:45:46 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
Not "one" only *you* have to wonder..the rest of the hammies in the
world already know the answer to this. You (and your sock puppet) are
the only one crying about a roger beep being illegal.

I have no sock puppet.


Allow me to place that in context. You also made the false claim you
have only accessed this group through the same provider when it was
shown you have accessed this group with no less than a dozen different
usenet services.

Shown by whom? Since that statement is a bold faced lie, I would love
to see any "proof" you might have. Bust just like that military
newsgroup that you stuck your foot in your mouth over with Frank, I'm
sure there will be none forthcoming.

I have had two, count 'em (2) isp's in the last 10 years. The first
was Worldlynx networks, and my current is penn tele data.


You screwed up, Dave. You have comcast...for now. Color it gone.

I do not have Comcast. I do not live on a Comcast system. That's WHY I
have ptd.net. You won't find competing isp's on the same cable system.

YOU are a liar in the first degree.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cv