CB
UPDATES TO THIS ISSUE ARE RECORDED BELOW THE ARTICLE
SEPTEMBER 1st 2000
INTRODUCTION
It overwhelms me as to the arrogance, lack of respect and consideration that the
Australian Communications Authority (ACA) have for the majority of the
Australian Citizen's Band (CB) Radio fraternity. It appears that the ACA have a
lack of regard for the expressed concerns by the CB fraternity with regards to
the Citizen's Band Radio Service (CBRS) in Australia. Throughout 1996 and 1997,
the ACA sought to introduce legislation that would see an introduction to a
Continuous Tone Coded Squelch System (CTCSS) as well as a Telemetry and
Telecommand System on the CBRS.
82% of Australia's CBers
had opposed the ACA's proposal. The ACA then
dropped the matter and nothing more was heard about it from them. However, a few
years later, (now) the ACA are once again, attempting to introduce legislation
to implement these systems on the CBRS.
Definitions
CTCSS: The system relies on receiving a sub-audible tone that opens up a
radio's mute. When the radio is not in transmit mode it remains muted until it
hears a transmission containing the same sub-audible tone. It operates similarly
to SELCAL with one major difference. A CTCSS will allow users to occupy a
frequency in a "private mode," so that other users will be precluded
from that frequency as the user's of the CTCSS have in effect commandeered a
frequency for as long as they wish. (For a more detailed description click on to
THE
AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS BAND RADIO FILES
and a seperate window will open. (Thanks Roger & Margaret.)
Telemetry and Telecommand System: This is a system that allows users
to remotely control the operation and function of various types of equipment and
machinery such as water pumps, electric fences or tabulating other data as may
be required.
Opposition
At that time, the ACA were seeking comments from the CB fraternity on these
issues by issuing a discussion paper from which submissions could be made to the
ACA. Over 80% of Australia's CBers had opposed the ACA's proposal to introduce
the CTCSS and the Telemetry and Telecommand System. I will repeat,
82% of Australia's CBers
had opposed the ACA's proposal. An
introduction to these systems to the CBRS and in particular to the UHF band
would result in radios having to be modified or altered to enable those radios
with the capabilities to utilise both systems. The implications of this are:
1. Channels will be taken away for the exclusive use of those with the
capabilities of utilising these systems. In effect the CTCSS would provide a
"private" channel for two people communicating with each other at
which point it ceases to become a free channel for all to use.
2. Business on UHF who claim an exclusive right to the use of channels for
business purposes would be permitted to operate with these systems freely and
would result in a greater conflict and antagonistic behaviour being displayed
between them and the "ordinary" CBer, who currently is being
frustrated at the attitude of businesses in commandeering channels all day for
business purposes.
3. There would be an increase in interference problems as a result of the mode
of operation of both systems. In particular, if a business is using a Telemetry
and Telecommand System it would generate interference to nearby radio stations.
If CTCSS were being used, the interference that would generate to nearby radio
stations would only serve to frustrate the users of those radios without any
recourse.
4. The morons, the hoons and all the idiots would have a field day with theses
systems causing mayhem and deliberate attempts to block and frustrate
communications between sensible radio operators.
5. The CBRS service will be lost to the intention it was originally established
for. Did we not fight for this voice only public communications service? It
appears that these issues will be the beginning of the end of the CBRS as we
have come to know it for more than 23 years. How long before part of the CBRS
service will be used for other modes of transmission? How long before we are
left with a service that will be utilised for everything else other than for
what it had intended to be, for voice communications only?
6. Many years ago, without much public consultancy, the use of "Selcall"
was introduced on UHF. But, could anyone ever have envisaged how the Selcall
tones would be abused in their use to the detriment of other regular users? The
CBer is not prepared to slowly have channels taken over for specialised use.
With repeaters eroding into the forty channel allocation and other channels of
necessity being required for calling and emergency applications, do the CBers
wish to have more channels taken over for use of the minority for self-serving
purposes? NO! The introduction of these systems will open the "flood
gate" to other selfish and inconsiderate parties who will lobby for other
types of non-voice communications to be established on the CBRS.
7. ACBRO say that if the ACA want to introduce the CTCSS and Telemetry and
Telecommand System, then let them introduce it on channels below or above the
CBRS. The CBRS is for voice communications only, that is the purpose it was
originally designed for. If introduced on the CBRS we can all say goodbye to the
service as we have come to know it.
Furthermore:
ACBRO DO NOT AGREE that an introduction of these systems
to the CBRS would be of any benefit to the MAJORITY of users of the CBRS who
have no need or desire to utilise these systems other than a select few who are
the MINORITY users of the service..
ACBRO DO NOT AGREE that an introduction of these systems to the CBRS would
preserve the integrity of the CBRS as it would only serve to further the
frustration of users who are currently dealing with many problems and issue's on
the CBRS that inhibit or limit the enjoyment of the service to the MAJORITY of
users.
ACBRO DO NOT AGREE that an introduction of these systems to the CBRS would
eliminate the perceived problems by accommodating for legislation to overcome
those problems. As an example, after selcall was introduced, the problems and
issue's arising from its introduction still exist today and there has never been
any legislation introduced to effectively resolve those problems and issue's.
ACBRO DO NOT AGREE that an introduction of these systems to the CBRS would
result in the correct implementation and use by users who would seek to use
these systems to the detriment of others. History has shown us that there are
those users who will always take the challenge of disrupting the CBRS by what
ever means possible. These systems would only serve to further their
self-serving purposes.
ACBRO DO NOT AGREE that an introduction of these systems to the CBRS would
result in a function of normal "growth" for the MAJORITY of CB users
but would only serve in a function of normal "growth" for the MINORITY
or select few who desire to see such systems in place for self-serving purposes.
ACBRO DO NOT AGREE that an introduction of these systems to the CBRS would
result in a minimal usage of these systems by the business community. The number
of businesses using the CBRS for business purposes and claiming the right to
commandeer a channel has steadily been growing, year after year. These systems,
if they were in place, would only strengthen their resolve to maintain their
stance on the CBRS and would invariably see more businesses finding these
systems as an opportunity and a "doorway" to initiate and conduct
their affairs on the CBRS.
Also,
The ACA implies that CTCSS and selcall are "similar." This is a
misleading statement as the word "similar" is a general, broad term
that does not accurately reflect that there are differences between CTCSS and
selcall that are of major consequence.
The ACA also has "downplayed" the effect that Telemetry and
Telecommand systems would have in urban areas. Telemetry and Telecommand Systems
would only serve to create yet another form of interference to nearby stations.
The ACA state there are currently users that exist who operate CTCSS or the
Telementry and Telecommand system. ACBRO say that the ACA should give
consideration to investigating these users with a view to exercising their right
to prosecute them for the unauthorised use of these systems.
It appears that those that have expressed a desire to have these systems in
place are in the MINORITY of users of the CBRS such as business people, farmers
and the like who do not represent the MAJORITY of users of the CBRS, who for
self-serving purposes have whispered in the ears of the ACA that they "want
these systems" in place.
Conclusion
Let me repeat that,
82% of Australia's CBers
had opposed the ACA's proposal. Who is the ACA
listening to? Australian CBers overwhelmingly, have said "no" to ACA's
proposal. Definition of "no" as defined by the Concise Macquarie
Dictionary:
no /nou/, adv., n. 1. a word used: a. to express dissent, denial, or refusal, as
in response (opposed to yes). b. to emphasise a previous negative or
qualify a previous statement. 2. not in any degree; not at all (used with a
comparative). 3. not.
"NO" Means "NO!" What part of
the word "NO" don't the ACA understand? Do the ACA think CBers are
fools? Do the ACA think they only need to pander to the selected and minority
few? Do the ACA think CBers have short memories? Have the ACA forgotten that 82%
of Australia's CBers had initially opposed the ACA's proposal? Are the ACA aware
that the word "NO" Means "NO?"
I repeat:
82% of Australia's CBers
had opposed the ACA's proposal?
Action
The ACA is seeking, once again, comments about the proposed variation of the
Citizen Band Radio Stations Class Licence with regards to the CTCSS and the
Telemetry and Telecommand System. The draft legislation may be obtained via a
package containing a copy of the existing class licence, the proposed class
licence and background about the proposed changes and available by writing to:
Ms Carmen Cecere
Radiocommunications Licensing Policy Team
Radiofrequency Planning Group
Australian Communications Authority
PO Box 78
BELCONNEN ACT 2616
Telephone: (02) 6256 5279
Facsimile: (02) 6256 5256
E-mail: carmen.cecere@aca.gov.au
ACBRO is calling for all in the CB fraternity to unite once again against ACA's
proposal. It is important to note that a non-response to this issue will enable
the authorities to assume that a "no care" attitude exists and your
inaction will indicate no objection to the proposal. To oppose the introduction
of the CTCSS and the Telemetry and Telecommand System consider putting into
action the following:
1.
Lodge an opposition to the
proposed legalisation of the CTCSS and the Telemetry and Telecommand System on
the CBRS in writing and addressed to:
The Manager
RadioCommunications Licensing Policy Team
Radiofrequency Planning Group
Australian Communications Authority
PO Box 78
BELCONNEN ACT 2616
(Email Option)
If you prefer to submit a pre-written form objecting to the proposed
introduction of CTCSS and Telementry and Telecommand Systems on the CBRS then click
here and a new window will open. Print out (approx. 2 pages,) fill in and
post the form to the above address or copy and paste the form into your email
program and email it to Radiocommunications.Licensing.Policy@aca.gov.au
with the subject heading of "CBRS Class Licence Discussion." (Don't
forget to fill in your details at the bottom of the pre-written objection form.)
Forward this page to everyone
you know and any other interested parties
4.
Print this page out and
distribute it among your friends and Club members. (Approx. 4 pages depending on
your printer settings.)
5.
Let your member of Parliament
know about this issue and lodge an opposition with him/her.
Your representation on this matter must be made before the deadline of October
30th 2000.
Thank You.
Pas, ACBRO 26.
(Personal Viewpoint in Part)
DECEMBER 4th 2000
Comments and submissions on the Discussion Paper circulated by the ACA to
propose an introduction to a Continuos Tone Coded Squelch System as well as a
Telemetry and Telecommand System on the CBRS closed on October 30th 2000. The
outcome of public submissions made to the ACA regarding this proposal is as
follows.
Regarding the introduction of CTCSS on UHF:
Against 94%
For
6%
Regarding the introduction of Telemetry & Telecommad systems on UHF:
Against 87%
For 13%
ACBRO thank not only its own supporters of the issue, but all those that made
submissions to the ACA in their own right. Below is what the issue was all
about.
DECEMBER 28th 2000
The Australian Communications Authority (ACA) has announced changes that update
the Citizen Band Radio Stations class licence. These will allow for the
introduction of new types of communications including the use of ALL selective
calling techniques including Continuous Tone Coded Squelch Systems (CTCSS) and
Telemetry and Telecommand systems on channels 22 and 23.
ACA Chairman Tony Shaw said he expected some CB operators to disagree with the
decision.
"However, the ACA believes the benefits of the changes far outweigh the
view of some operators that the status quo be maintained," Mr Shaw said.
CTCSS and Telemetry and Telecommand systems on UHF are now legal.