Talk:Citizens band radio

message: Isn't it strange that it has GMRS, but no FRS? Ilyanep 17:44 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Yes, and it was not properly characterized (FRS, GMRS, MURS).  These services and CB are part fo the FCC's Personal Radio Services (PRS).  It use to be Citizens Radio Services since 1957 - BUT the public could not understand or differentiate that title from Class "D" service - so FCC changed the division’s name (reducing ambiguity).
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=personal_radio
The origianl Class "D" and Class "E" sections had significant errors (not supported by the FCC filing and ruling records).  I softened wording - for proper context -- since it comes across to this reader as "anti-amateur radio".  Class "E" requirements were actually met in 1980s with 3 new services.  The 220 MHz band is not generally available to the public (globally) - so this would have been an economic barrier for affordable radios (global mfg.) to public in 1970s. 
The UPS allocation (arm twisting in Washington DC) menioned in 1993 did get some 220 MHz bandwdith (as did another service at 218 to 219 MHz.  These frquencies are not well utilized (economics again) - and FCC forced UPS to use a narrow bandwidth system (not FM, SSB, or AM) -- much to the embarrassment of UPS.
G. Beat 21:56 18 March 2006 (UTC)
----
I could be mistaken, but wasn't channel 19 the default channel for most truck communications, not just traffic moving in certain directions?JesseG 03:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Back in the 1970s channels 19 and 21 were both trucker's channels. If I recall correctly, 19 was for east/west and 21 was for north/south. When I was truck driving in 1996 and 1997 channel 19 was the trucker's channel thoughout the country. However, I think channel 21 was still popular on Interstate 5, perhaps to avoid interference with State Route 99. Rsduhamel 19:42, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: In Australia they have a seperate Marine CB band which is a little higher up the frequency spectrum. Petedavo talk contributions 22:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Comments

message: I really don't rememeber the use of CB in the movie Die Hard. I thought they were just 2-way FM radios - not CB.
To the best of my knowledge in Die Hard the bad guys use kenwood handy's, as well as in Die Hard 2. Since kenwood only produces for amateur of professional bands it is unlikely that they would have covered CB.
John McClain gets on the radio and says something like "channel 9 channel 9!"
Then it cuts to a scene in a police station where the female cop responds to the call.  Anymore doubts?
Channel 9 can be an assignment on a 16 position radio for the Land Mobile Radio (LMR) Service - just as it is for a Citizens band radio (27 MHz).  Nope, not 27 MHz CB - LOOK at the length (wavelength and frequency have inverse relationship) of the radio's antenna used - physics answers this question - looks like a UHF radio (GMRS service is at 462-467 MHz/UHF).
G. Beat 21:56 18 March 2006 (UTC)
In Die Hard, the handhelds are obviously not CBs, but when they show the dispatcher on the other end, she has what looks like a Cobra CB base station.
Channel 9 on CB is typically at the time of the making of Die Hard considered the Emergency Channel for CB, which was monitored by Police stations nationwide (hence the 911 operator responsed to the call).  So in effect it could be CB radio even though the equipment used (McClain's hand held) could have been a VHF/UHF transmitter  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.156.42.129 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CB in Movies

message: Does it make sense to mention the other terms sometimes applied to CB, such as "children's band" or "chicken band"? N0YKG 21:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it would depend on how you present it ;)
I am not very familiar with wiki. With a situation like this cant we just remove it. --Rek4385 (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other, derogatory terms 

message: Breaker, breaker 1-4; 1 4 for a copy? DavidFarmbrough 13:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's your answer. Way back in the early 1970's when CB was illegal in the UK, British CB'ers used 11 as a calling channel (just like the Americans) but were forced to move to 14 because of interference from legal equipment on the same channel. When CB was "legalized" in 1981 they continued to use 14. Apgeraint 14:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't 14 the main calling channel? 

message: What a dirty radio, you'd think someone would wipe the dust off of it before taking a picture and putting it in the encyclopedia. Anonym1ty 17:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a Picture... 

message: If I could, I would take a product shot from some place online and submit it instead of that ugly dusty radio, but I can't, so it's up to the other users to take a freely usable picture of a CLEAN  cb radio and replace that dusty POS picture.
:I'm here to say the same thing. How about a photo of a CB radio in a truck cab, or one of a mint Cobra 148 or President Lincoln. Not a dirty old rig on someone's bed, please! --kingboyk 03:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it is a horrible picture.  i may have a better picture, i will check. if i dont i'm sure someone else looking at this does.  also technically a president lincoln is not an american c radio ;).  A president washington or a cobra 2000 would look great on this page though. 08:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a good photo showing a base station in new condition with a D-104. Many CB'rs have bigtime base set-ups with "extra" stuff if you know what I mean. Should I post it? JungleCat  23:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Much better picture. Great job! Phauge 04:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that is a beautiful picture, great looking rig you have there Lenn0r 02:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  replace the picture! 

message: It's enormous.  Why not create a separate "CB Radio in Australia" article? --141.154.25.91 16:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are correct. That would take much time and thought to "separate these twins". JungleCat  15:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Australia can be proud of being the first Country in the world to produce the world's very first UHF CB radio. Phillips' FM320 will be put into production this year and be available early nest year (1978.)"
They were about 30 years late in making that claim.  What about the original Class D UHF sets in the United States?  91.125.210.60 (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  huge Australian CB history section? 

message: I'm going to go for it and split this off to a new article.  The main article has gotten too long to manage. Squidfryerchef 17:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CB usage in the United States 

message: I'm moving some books from the References section to here for the time being.  Based on the edit history, I think they were added as sort of a working bibliography.  I'm moving their bibliographic information here until someone uses them as a source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizens%27_band_radio&diff=63694925&oldid=63524200
*
*
Squidfryerchef 17:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional references 

message: I added a link to Alfred J. Gross in the See also section.  Since he was the inventor of the original technology, maybe there should be a bit about him in the History section? --cslarsen 10:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Squidfryerchef 16:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this tidbit of info in an old mmagazine 
Phineas Thadeus Veeblefetzer who is also known as Al Gross, was never confined by technical limitations as an Electronic Scientist during the 1930's. 
  
In 1938 he built a small transceiver with a range of 60 kilometers using the 300 Mhz band. 
  
After developing and improving the idea and after discussions with Jack Jet of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided that this would be a good thing to give to the public so that citizens may appreciate the benefits of public radio.   
  
In 1944 the FCC issued Al with the experimental CB licences no. WIOXVX and WIOXVY so that Al could continue with the concept of a possible introduction of a Citizen's Band Radio Service. 
  
On March 22nd in 1948, in Cleveland, Ohio in the U.S.A., Al succeeded in meeting the FCC specifications which he helped lay down. 
  
The FCC gave 460 Mhz to 470 Mhz to the public and within 3 months Al received $5,000,000 worth of orders from the public for his 465 Mhz CB sets. 
  
Thus, was born the Citizen's Band Radio Service and the rest is history. 
  
The very first “legal callsign” ever issued to a person for use on the Citizen’s Band Radio Service was 19W0001 and in fact, is still current, issued by the FCC. 
  
Who was it issued to? Who else? Mr. Al "CB" Gross. 
I also found the same in an online source here http://www.acbro.org/inventedcb.htm
Petedavo talk contributions 21:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alfred J. Gross 

message: I condensed the material on Indonesia and added a couple sources.  However, I removed mention of the UHF band because the other sources I looked at only mentioned a 27 MHz band and a VHF band, no UHF. Squidfryerchef 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesian UHF CB? 

message: is it US centric in the sense that - aren't those frequencies legally used in areas outside of the US?  El hombre de haha 06:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I toned it down a bit.  I wouldn't say that the section is US-specific as it is now, because even in countries that allow more frequencies, they still have people who go outside the band. Squidfryerchef 02:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: freebanding section

message: The FCC required a Class C license for CB radio.  The cost was $20 for seven years.  Also I believe when the CB craze hit, CB was reserved for business use and was illegal for personal use even with a license.  Many people were flying radio control airplanes on 27 MHz at the time but were forced to move to the newer 72 MHz band for safety reasons.  WAB Houston 17:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Class C was for model control and Class D was for 2-way voice.  At the time, yes the FCC didn't allow "ragchewing".  It wasn't exactly business use only but there had to be a purpose for each transmission.  There's more about model aircraft at CB usage in the United States. Squidfryerchef 21:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: License requirements and effect on radio control modeling

message: Why is the title "Band" in small case? Shouldn't it be in upper case? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally on the Wikipedia, only the first word in titles is capitalized. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But "Citizens' Band" is a proper noun. See the google search results =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even then, they still usually only capitalize the first word.  Except if it's a person's name.  I know this is not the usual English capitalization, but they usually do this on WP for some reason which escapes me.  ( Perhaps it's in the style guide someplace? ) Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small case for "band"? 

message: I have re-added the  tag. CB may have originated in the US, but a lot of countries have licensed it out. This article lists only four countries, and does not have the global breadth required for it to be neutral and balanced. This article should be about CB across the world. US centric information would be in history. Additional details go in CB  usage in the United States. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The global tag is worthless. If you know enough about the topic to realize it is not covering a world-wide view, then you know enough to add that world-wide view to the article. It's a polite fiction that the Wikipedia can cover the whole world; notice the complete lack of contributors from, oh, say, anywhere in Africa. Don't tag, add content. Tags are a way of saying "I've noticed something wrong with this article but I won't tell you specifically what it is and I'm far too important and  busy to fix it myself, but now that I've pointed out what you've missed, I'm sure you will go fix it, now that I've condescended to rub your nose in the problem." If an editor feels moved to add content, he or she will; not all your tagging will add a single line. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg to differ. How did you come to the conclusion that the tag is worthless? When you say that wikipedia lacks contributors from Africa, that's exactly the point the global tag is supposed to address: that the article does not cover a global perspective. Why are you afraid to host the tag may I ask? If I know something, I can add content to the article, but that does not necessarily make me the expert in the subject, or that my contributions will give a global perspective. These tags are meant for a purpose, not for individual editors to pull them down on their own whims. I request you to revert your edit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global tag 

message: So, I was the one who originally reverted the globalize tag.  Reason being, the article is not perfect but it contains quite a bit of information on CB outside the United States.  The "History" section might only have three other countries, but the "Frequencies" section covers the EU, talks about unique bandplans in the UK, Germany, and Poland, then it goes on to Canada, New Zealand, Japan.
So I thought it was pretty well globalized as it is.  If someone wants to add information about a specific country we've missed, that's fine.  But the globalize tag is usually for articles of global importance that only have information about a single country ( usually the US or UK given the demographics here ).
This article also used to have an external link to a page which covered the personal radio services for various countries around the world, so if someone saw in our article that, say, Germany has some unique frequencies they could go to that site and see an entire table.  It also had countries that this article doesn't cover (yet) like India and Brazil. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The globalize tag is not discriminatory. The fact that New Zealand and Japan have a single line mention does not mean that the article has the global depth. The article takes a rather condescending view of countries outside the US. "CB Frequencies Worldwide", In Poland (and probably some other former Warsaw Pact countries)..." This article is very poorly written. It should 1. Talk about what is CB radio 2. CB radio history (origins in US, and spread across the world). CB radio in popular culture across the world. The article should not be colonized by US stuff. The logic you cite in the summary is also perplexing. The internet was "invented" in the US, does that mean it should only cover mostly the US? The tag needs to stay up. Oh and yes, there is information on India. See Citizens Band radio in India, I had written it a few days before, but I was caught up with Amateur radio in India which is on FAC. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added frequency info and some questions to Citizens Band radio in India.  As far as being global, note that 27 MHz CB was around in North America for about two decades before it started being authorized in Europe and Asia.  The "History" section looks very US-specific at first clance but that's true only up to 1980 or so.  A lot of that information is relevant to the rest of the world because it shows how the bandplan developed which most countries follow.  The odd spacing of some of the channels got that way because of vagaries in the US regulations. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More thoughts on globalize 

message: I'd like to add something about choices in microphones - some, like a noise-cancelling  microphone, legitimately improve the communication effectiveness of a CB radio, others like an echo microphone have purposes which are forever beyond my understanding. I'd like to include something about the varying levels of effectiveness of choices in acessories; really, every CB radio is technically the same so to individualize and personalize, hobbyists seek out "decorations" like more buttons and lights, more meters, and (perhaps ill-chosen) customizations like sound effects.  I don't have a good reference for this, and I'm afraid anything I write would sound pretty patronizing. There's got to be something out there written on whatever drives us consumers to buy "power mics", fuzzy dice, chrome muffler tips, and special turntable bricks; our consumer yearnings overwhelm our understanding of electronics. "Fetishization of technology" is probably more of an essay than an encyclopedia article, though. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Microphones

message: The popular culture section is really cluttered up.  A lot of those movies and songs just barely reference CB radio, or show it being used once or at best in a way that is incidental to the movie and not a prominent theme.  Do we really need to list every film where a CB is used and every song with a reference, no matter how oblique, to CB?  For example the Tracy Lawrence, Beck, and Pixies songs should clearly go, and maybe several of the others.  Same with most of the movies after 1978 (the last of those films where CB is really central, instead of just incidental, is Convoy).  Does anyone else agree that the section should be cleaned up?  For a song to be included it should probably both have CB as its central theme, and be sourcable as having charted on either the Billboard pop or country singles chart.  As for the films, I would move for deleting everything after 1978's Convoy unless a source can be cited that the film is primarily about CB radio, as opposed to one in which CB merely appears once.  Anyone else agree or disagree here?  96.239.145.54 (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree.  I suppose there is some value in referencing popular culture as there was an era when CB was very much part of said culture.  However, the current list is out of control and needs a clean up. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 20:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular culture trivia

message: Recent anonymous edits to Section 2.1 on US History, as well as introducing spelling errors, ramble and suggest factors in the decline of CB radio that are vague and subjective (the Reagan administration?!), emergence of technology (FRS) that actually emerged long after the decline of CB radio, and an assertion that regulations led to disregard of regulations.  Commentary on changes to the American culture doesn't belong in a section on the history of the use of CB radio; if these are intended to make a cosmic point, it is unlikely to be provable by citation.  The entire section needs a rewrite.  --Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the changes were controversial and without sources. I have reverted to the earlier version. --Elliskev 18:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits to US History 

message: I would like to clean this article up if I had the time. This article is in some serious need of a makeover. I believe it was written from a British stand point which is not a problem but CB radio in the U.S and CB in England differ. There should be two sub categories from CB. Besides that, the article is biased and is opinionated. --Rek4385 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased unverifiable article 

message: Citizens' needs an apostrophe! Any reason why the article hasn't already been moved?
Awien (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Citizens Band" doesn't have an apostrophe in the FCC regulations. Many of the apostrophes in this article are unnecessary. --65.101.133.143 (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nevertheless, the article should be consistent: apostrophes present or absent throughout. 86.184.161.129 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Citizens' Band 

message: The article currently references Chilton's CB Handbook of 1977 as showing ch. 9 - 15 plus ch. 23 being assigned for both inter- and intra-station use, with other channels for intra-station only. 
Howard W. Sams Citizens Band Radio Handbook, 2nd edition of 1964 reproduces the FCC Part 95 rules, which indicate that at that time it was only ch. 9 - 14 plus ch. 23 on which inter-station operation was permitted.   Presumably then, ch. 15 was a later addition - When? 
I'm not conversant enough with Wikipedia's syntax of adding references etc. to modify, but maybe somebody would like to modify this and add a note with the Sams reference?   12:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inter- vs. intra-station channels 

message: Should this article be at CB radio as the WP:COMMONNAME? I'd wager most people don't even know what "CB" stands for. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should it be CB? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Citizens band radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://apps.fcc.gov/eas/comments/GetPublishedDocument.html?id=135
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060917214644/http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/acrm/histpref.html to http://users.bigpond.net.au/acrm/histpref.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Citizens band radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://apps.fcc.gov/eas/comments/GetPublishedDocument.html?id=135&tn=472290
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706203636/http://www.spectralumni.ca/Brochures/TRC-40.pdf to http://www.spectralumni.ca/Brochures/TRC-40.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160120224026/http://www.postel.go.id/content/ID/regulasi/frekuensi/kepmen/km%20nomor%2077-2003%20krap.pdf to http://www.postel.go.id/content/ID/regulasi%5Cfrekuensi%5Ckepmen%5Ckm%20nomor%2077-2003%20krap.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dear readers, in my time as amateur, about 23-25 years ago, I heard of an (English?) radio amateur who sent his signal to the moon and after good 2 seconds heard his voice back again. He called ,,hallooo!" and heard it back. It was in the news then, (and I heard the record of it on tape). Does anyone remember where and who he was? Greets to all, Gerard Rorik, Netherlands.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.178.42 (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who said hallo to the moon? 

message: planet  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.24.29 (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  laura