From: gja@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Grenville Armitage)
Subject: Re: Citizens Band Packet Radio on 70cm
Organization: Basket Weavers, Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:18:26 GMT

In article <726360871.AA00307@csource.oz.au> Peter.Berrett@f404.n632.z3.fidonet.org (Peter Berrett) writes:

>I'd be interested to know peoples thought on the idea of a new Citizens band
>radio... one exclusively for packet radio.

Neat.

>The idea would be that non-amateurs
>would be able to communicate with their local bullettin boards without the need
>to pay for the telephone calls.

Oh. So you're really just looking for a way for BBSers to avoid telephone
charges. The 'packet radio' side would simply be a black-box data link
layer in much the same way as a telephone is now, eh?

>The band would need say, 80 channels and would
>ideally be on vhf or uhf. 

I'll buy the uhf bit, but 80 channels? I'll rearrange my quoting of your
article a bit...

>The whole system need only be low powered as it would be intended for local
>communications.

Packet protocols allow channels to be shared between multiple nodes (unless
you're using some particularly brain-dead protocol, which on principle
ought not be encouraged in a 'CB packet' band). If you want a localised
service, how many channels will you really need to access BBS's or repeaters?
(even assuming 1 channel per local BBS). Channel usage would also not have
to be unique outside a given radio range.

>My suggestion is that a portion of the 70cm Amateur
>band be allocated for this purpose.

Why? Do you have a problem with simply extending the present UHF CB
allocation?

	[..]
>I know some amateurs will argue that the new limited novice qualification is
>intended for this purpose 

An amateur licence is to encourage people on the path of increased technical
awareness of radio based communication, even if they do so using black boxes. 

>however I feel that most intending users do not
>really need to study radio theory as, in a similar fashion to cb,
>the equipment is readily available off the shelf.

This is an argument that will ultimately have no legs to stand on.
If you chose the 70cm band simply because of 'off the shelf' equipment,
you aren't thinking straight. No govt is going to legalise the ownership
and operation of equipment capable of transmitting outside your proposed
CB-packet band, so ham gear will be illegal for CB-packeteers to use.
Poof! There goes the 'off the shelf' argument. We'll be back to waiting
for manufacturers to release knobbled versions of their current lines.
It then makes just as much sense to expand the UHF CB allocation,
and have manufacturers release modified UHF CB rigs instead.

>As for the question of losing a portion of the 70cm band well... too bad.

Hey, alright! Can't argue with that.

>I
>would suggest that within a very short period of time after the introduction of
>such a service, there would be many thousands of computer users utilising the
>band - many more than there will ever be if it remains a purely amateur
>playground.

Is there some fundamental law of the cosmos that says the band _needs_ 
thousands of computer users? Is it lonely or something?

>I'm sure the above suggestion will cause a storm in the Amateur ranks but
>really computer users need to access their local bulletin boards without being
>milked by telecom.

You'll get a storm because, aside from a desire to avoid paying for 
telephone connections, you've given no justification for this plan.

>So lets hear some comments about the idea ( constructive please ). My thought
>is that if Amateurs and their respective organisations assisted in the setting
>up of such a service rather than yelled and screamed about losing bandspace,
>then they would do far more to promote the hobby than a limited novice
>qualification will ever do.

Errr...exactly _which_ hobby is going to be promoted? You've outlined the
basis for radio-ignorant horde of BBSers to find a new way to interconnect,
and you think that will promote amateur radio? I don't buy it.

gja (who, for the record, is vk3xmw but hasn't been on air for 3 years).