Talk:CB radio in the United Kingdom

message: Not a bad article.
I've just read this article for the first time and I can assure anyone reading it that it's a fairly accurate account of what happened. I was very active in the campaign to legalize CB in the UK. It was obvious that the British Government at the time were determined to destroy CB. First of all the government flatly refused to introduce a CB system but a few people started to use illegally imported 27 Mhz rigs. The campaigners' preferred frequency would have been 230 Mhz. When the government finally published its Green Paper suggesting a frquency of 930 Mhz there was a public outcry. Those who had waited patiently realized that they weren't at all serious and immediately went out and got 27 Mhz equipment. In 1981 the British Government introduced a system which was not only impracticable, but it interfered with the system already in massive use. This was seen as a deliberate attempt by the government to get their revenge on CB users for having won their campaign. I now live in France where the legal system on 27 Mhz AM/SSB 4W AM, 12W PEP SSB is still in daily use. It's the same system as the USA It doesn't cause interference. They lied to us! Apgeraint 20:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was also very active in the early CB days (79-81) and have been responsible for much of this article. You raise a good question: did the government deliberately create a system that would render CB impossible in practice? They certainly did achieve that. However, never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence (and a little paranoia). The question of interference was probably blown out of proportion, but there's no question that there was some interference to television reception, modellers, etc. Modellers had a legitimate gripe since they had a right to use 27 MHz, and any CB popping up on (or even close to, model receivers not usually being very good quality) the channel they were using would send the model out of control. Most TVI was caused (as I suggested in the article) by the use of burners, but not exclusively so - there was some very crappy equipment around and a badly set-up 4 watts can cause TVI. (We've all seen people wiring up antennas with no coax, or without a proper contact to the sheath, or with a short across the coax). Now given that TV reception could be affected at close quarters, it's not unreasonable to suppose that other services such as ambulance and other emergency services (as was often claimed) could be affected. However, I'm sure that any such incidents were isolated, and : exaggerated for obvious reasons by the authorities. I think for them the problem was more to do with lack of any equipment standards, so even if they legalised the "standard" 27 MHz AM service, they'd still have no control over the equipment in use, with the interference problems that that MIGHT cause. The service they did legalise at least allowed them to keep control over that, since equipment had to be DTI approved like every other radio transmitter device sold for use in the UK. The channel offset was intended (officially) to prevent interference because any harmonics would fall in-between the channels used by the emergency services, etc. However, I'm sure, as you suggest, there could well have been a bonus (for them) element of effectively creating havoc on the 27 MHz band where legal and illegal equipment was used simultaneously. The idea being that it would be so crappy as to drive people away altogether. Well, if so, it worked, eventually. I do think personally though that this is unlikely to have been part of the official thinking. I expect they hoped that the legal service would encourage people to leave the AM equipment behind and move to FM - most people I knew really would have preferred to be using the system legally anyway, the lawbreaking was undesirable for most. The fact remains that the US and French (and others) systems notwithstanding, AM or SSB on HF frequencies is not a local, short distance, point-to-point system - it's a long distance, technically demanding system. More like amateur radio. The fact that you can have SSB conversations with US users from northern Europe shows this - what good is it for a Londoner to know that there's a traffic problem on I-95? To this day, I believe that a 220 MHz service would have been very popular, functional and not too expensive (as opposed to the 934 MHz, which was very expensive back then). CB might have not been the flash in the pan it ended up - though then again, one might argue that this was the government's hope all along. Graham 06:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assessment of the situation is spot on. I too originally campaigned to have UK CB on FM on the old "Lancaster Bomber" frequencies but anywhere between 40 and 500 Mhz would have been acceptable. In 1981 I couldn't make up my mind if the government were bloodyminded or just incompetent. Whatever the answer, since moving to France in 1990 I've learned that things can be done differently. The reason why 27 Mhz AM/FM/SSB is legal in France is because the French government are not too intransigent to admit that they make mistakes. They are prepared to listen to criticism and are not afraid to do U-turns, because their long-term aim is to "get it right". There's a saying here; When a Frenchman says "NON!" he doesn't mean "NON!", he means "Maybe you can convince me to say OUI!". Apgeraint 11:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

message: "At the height of the craze, everyone was either using CB or knew somebody who did – it is important to realise that this was a very significant movement, in terms of numbers". I am very sceptical of this. There are no sources in the article and no absolute numbers. I do not believe that CB radio was as popular in the UK as the article suggests. I believe that this article is perpetually compromised; the only people reading and writing it are British CB radio fans, who are not objective. And in a few years it will fade into nothingness as the people above grow old and die. Ashley Pomeroy 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me clarify a little:- Just before the publication of the Green Paper in August 1980, govenment experts estimated that there were 250.000 CB'ers in the UK . Once the Green Paper was published there was a massive increase in illegal CB use. Incidentally 10,000 people replied to the Green Paper objecting to its proposals. From my own obsevations I can say that I lived in a street of 100 houses, and by 1981 10 of these had CB installed. I can only guess that the same was true for the rest of the country. I also observed that 1 in 2 heavy goods vehicles were equiped with CB at this time. Remember that there were no cellphones. Even cordless phones were illegal and the only way to communicate was by C.B. which was also illegal. Apgeraint 22:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I was there too in 1979/1980 and there were a great many people on the CB even back then. In my smal town on the  east coast of England there must have been 250 + users on the CB. Thats not taking the truckers.
So the assertion that everyone was either using the CB or knew someone who was is quite correct. Onepagan 01:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: yep, we are talking 1979, not 1879. I was 17 when I "got into" CB so work it out. I hope I'm not likely to die soon. Stupid idiot (Pomeroy, not you) you'll get old too y'know. 203.87.74.230 (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: The article is too subjective, tending to voice opinions rather than neutral information.  A re-write would be useful, perhaps putting opinions or criticism of the system under a Criticism heading.  Dawd 00:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just read carefully through the article and I can assure you that it's quite accurate. Those who have written it have done it well. You can't re-write history. Apgeraint 22:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have also read through the article and confirm that it gels with my experience of the use of CB in the UK. The comments about the bomber frequencies I can't verify but subjectively speaking (and objective evidence will be very difficult to unearth) I haven't seen anything that makes me want to say 'WRONG'. Mikebanahan 09:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know these messages are old but sorry, having two people nod their heads isn't good enough for an encyclopedia. This whole article needs verifiable sources - opinion or reassuring of accuracy is not good enough. Synergy/Blades (Talk) 04:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree; the article reads, in some places, like an essay rather than a factual and encylopaedic piece. The use of passive voice is encouraged. NPOV seems to be fine, though. CNash 22:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've made some big changes to this article to reflect the views of some of the comments here. A lot of information was mentioned several times throughout the article, so I've merged some, deleted others and added some more. I've also added lots more references. I've deleted a few bits which, though I believe are correct, haven't managed to find references for yet. There is still much to do though!Mongoosander (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts or opinions?

message: The article is really, really poor on the quality scale, with very little references and extremely heavy on trivia, original research and unnecessary detail. I'm not entirely sure what to do with it, either, so I may come back in a week or so and just cut some sections right back. I've added two templates to the top in the meantime. Synergy/Blades (Talk) 04:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Quality

message: many of the milestone dates and technical specifications would be better set in tables.
Copies of the full current specification are available on line
It is now possible to send databursts, as of 2011. And Phase Modulation has been acceptable as a signal encoding method for some time (may be 2005 or 2007).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.13.133 (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  quality 

message: Almost completely original research. Few references, full of opinions and plain rubbish (talk about "swearing in", for example). Better off reduced and merged into the main CB article. 82.152.193.148 (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can assure you that the term "swearing in" was in common use by non-technical (i.e. most) CB users at the time. They'd heard of 'SWR' and then made up a term to fit. Of course it's imporbable that a verifiable source for this could be found now. 121.216.147.187 (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The term that I heard frequently was, "swering in" (pronounced like "swerving" but without the 'v') - presumably from SWRing. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD 

message: The license was similar to the television license: a pro-forma from Post Office counters, posted with a cheque or Postal Order. Some of the bigger companies had business machines with accounts computing systems capabilities but standing orders and direct debits from individual consumers' personal accounts were uncommon. By 2000, though, they were standard options.
It was a flat rate per year per household and covered use of fixed and portable equipment by the household. I think it started about £10 in 1981, more or less, and was maybe £30 in 2000.
:It was £15 in 1981 and that fee covered the household for the use of up to 3 CB sets.  More sets than 3 required a correspondingly more expensive licence.  There was no need to post anything to anyone.  You simply filled in the licence form; handed fifteen of your hard earned pounds to the post office counter clerk who stuck a yellow stamp onto the licence form and you were licenced. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licenses 

message: Call signs were available: the register is now closed, though, and no longer maintained. a typical example of call-sign syntax for UK FM 27MHz CB being number-letter-number-letter-letter, e.g. 0H0NO, 0Y3AZ, 8L3EP. Like e-mail addresses, character or avatar names, and other electrically-mediated forms of identity-aliasing--if the stringliteral were available the Radiocommunications Agency (RA) would issue it free to the applicant.
Applying for a callsign was done by way of the License application form.
:Call signs must have come in later.  Indeed there was a period when they were compulsory (though few users actually used it.   I still have my first CB licence (the post office clerk's overstamp shows that it was issued at 9:02 AM on the 2nd November 1981 just as the post office opened) and there is no mention of a call sign or the need or ability to obtain one.  I never had one.  31.52.11.70 (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call signs 

message: This was by examination then, probably as now--though there may have been substantial changes to the Amateur syllabi.
:This article and talk page gives the clear impression that not many people understand why amateur radio operators are required to sit an examination whereas other operators (in this case CB operators are not). The amateur radio licence is the modern development of what used to be an experimental radio operator's licence. In the UK (and likely elsewhere) all radio equipment capable of transmitting has to by type approved to a specification appropriate to its function. 
:Equipment used by amateur radio operators is exempt from any requirement to be type approved. The licence holder himself is responsible for ensuring that his equipment conforms to the relevant requirements and it is this feature that the examination covers. Certain types of licence holder also used to have to demonstrate proficiency in morse code.
:Since CB operators can only use type approved equipment, there is no need for a similar examination.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.136.124 (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amateur (Ham) Licensing 

message: I'm interested in the topic and want to know more, but we've got to find more good solid references for this article. Many parts read like nostalgic personal recollection.  Surely there are old newspaper articles that at least give some citeable facts about CB in the UK?  Hard to find on this side of the Atlantic, though. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: References, references, references

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on CB radio in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive {newarchive} to http://markhobley.yi.org:8000/CBUsers
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100809181224/http://www.wikiradio.org.uk:80/ to http://www.wikiradio.org.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article makes reference to "27/81" equipment but there is no explanation anywhere of what this means. It may be "obvious" to CB enthusiasts, but it isn't obvious to me, although I'd hazard a guess the 27 part refers to 27MHz. The article needs some kind of definition or explanation of this term. 86.130.129.201 (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: '27/81' is a reference to the type approval. As you surmise, the '27' part is the frequency band, but the '81' part is the year the approval was made (1981). All compliant CB radios were required to display a '27/81' type approval mark. In parallel there was also the '934/81' type approval which covered the 934 MHz band equipment. 86.190.126.106 (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Some kind soul should add a section that covers all the UK specs: CB 27/81, PR 27 GB, PR 27/94, PR27/97 and what ever the EU spec is (I don't think it has a fancy number like the others but CEPT all-mode + UK FM - CE, maybe?).  Help a poor foreigner out?  --plaws (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "27/81" needed