Author Topic: CB Radio decision reversed - 40 chan UHF to remain legal  (Read 1480 times)

Offline AGAS 5

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 930
  • THANKS 257
  • Location: Great Southern Land
  • REMLR No: 218
Series 2A SWB 113-300 VTF  6 RAR
Perentie FFR 49-390  1 MP BN
Perentie GS 50-087  5 RAR

Offline kman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
  • THANKS 31
  • Location: Kuranda, Qld
  • REMLR No: 278
Re: CB Radio decision reversed - 40 chan UHF to remain legal
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2017, 12:55:52 PM »
Makes sense. One of the commentators is wrong when he says the bottom 40 channels of the 80 channel radios are the same as the 40 channel radios. They use the same frequencies but 40 channel radios use 25kHz bandwidth while 80 channel radios use 12.5kHz. This means someone using an old radio on, say, channel 12 will interfere with channels in the newer radios using frequencies each side of that.

This was the reason they were going to ban them but it turns out that in practice (probably due to the low power and geographic dispersal combined with channel selection in the same area at the same time) it isn't an issue.

Good to see they are prepared to make a reversal based on the reality rather than the theoretical.

Howard
Ferret Mk 1/2
MUTT M151A2
No 5 Trailer, RAAF Tactical Trailer

Offline dugite

  • REMLR Committee
  • Veteran
  • ***
  • Posts: 1078
  • THANKS 102
  • Location: Tamworth
  • REMLR No: 374
Re: CB Radio decision reversed - 40 chan UHF to remain legal
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2017, 02:26:59 PM »
Makes sense. One of the commentators is wrong when he says the bottom 40 channels of the 80 channel radios are the same as the 40 channel radios. They use the same frequencies but 40 channel radios use 25kHz bandwidth while 80 channel radios use 12.5kHz. This means someone using an old radio on, say, channel 12 will interfere with channels in the newer radios using frequencies each side of that.

This was the reason they were going to ban them but it turns out that in practice (probably due to the low power and geographic dispersal combined with channel selection in the same area at the same time) it isn't an issue.

Good to see they are prepared to make a reversal based on the reality rather than the theoretical. I agree that it is a practical move.

Howard

Yes, there doesn't seem to be a lot of use of the "intermediate" channels or the associated repeater channels anyway. I've only experienced very occasional minor interference on a 40ch set when a nearby radio is transmitting on an "intermediate" channel.
2a 109 114-341,
No.5 173-589,
W/S Platform 178-000,
PT1 204-796