what about 169MHz for "VHF CB"?
-
- Regular
- Posts: 16
- Joined: 20 Mar 2021, 02:13
what about 169MHz for "VHF CB"?
I've just spent about two hours perusing all the information I can find and I'm still none the wiser, so here goes.
Now before I begin, yes I know it's technically forbidden so all the Dudley Do-Rights can keep their complaints to themselves. This is just a "what if" sort of question. I was just curious. This is what radio is about.
From what I can gather, for various reasons there's very limited use on the 169MHz band. Apart from a couple of Business Light allocations the only other thing I could find reference to was Wimbledon tennis radios and vague references to "events".
My question is, what would be the actual implications of for instance programming a Baofeng (and I don't even have one) to a few unused 169MHz channels as a sort of cheeky personal VHF CB rig for a set group that would only ever use it among themselves not very often, like for fox hunting, cattle rustling or personal inter-spaceship communication?
Now before I begin, yes I know it's technically forbidden so all the Dudley Do-Rights can keep their complaints to themselves. This is just a "what if" sort of question. I was just curious. This is what radio is about.
From what I can gather, for various reasons there's very limited use on the 169MHz band. Apart from a couple of Business Light allocations the only other thing I could find reference to was Wimbledon tennis radios and vague references to "events".
My question is, what would be the actual implications of for instance programming a Baofeng (and I don't even have one) to a few unused 169MHz channels as a sort of cheeky personal VHF CB rig for a set group that would only ever use it among themselves not very often, like for fox hunting, cattle rustling or personal inter-spaceship communication?
-
- Super Member
- Posts: 257
- Joined: 23 Nov 2017, 20:14
- Call Sign: 26DG01
- Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Devon
Re: what about 169MHz for "VHF CB"?
I think it'd be safer just to use the VHF simple light channels. £75 for 5 years works out at the old CB licence fee anyway. I know it's not what you had in mind, but if you get caught stealing MRI scanners the last thing you need is an additional charge of illegal radios.
On the other hand, I've worked with people who use the stock Baofeng Channels for actual work, and they haven't been busted yet.
On the other hand, I've worked with people who use the stock Baofeng Channels for actual work, and they haven't been busted yet.
Sent from my GP300 using DTMF
-
- Radio Addict
- Posts: 804
- Joined: 05 Oct 2007, 06:31
Re: what about 169MHz for "VHF CB"?
This is some kind of lazy arsed alternative to spending a few hours getting a radio amateur licence and using 2M?
my friend grafter, seems like you are using a very offensive tone in the reply.
- bigpimp347
- Legend
- Posts: 8792
- Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 10:23
- Location: J26 Nottingham
Re: what about 169MHz for "VHF CB"?
heard it all before, is this another DelBoy dumb idea ??
there's enough channels, frequencies, bands to use legally, illegally licenced and other,
why do CBers want any more, they don't use what they've already got..!!
there's enough channels, frequencies, bands to use legally, illegally licenced and other,
why do CBers want any more, they don't use what they've already got..!!
I want to Die Asleep like my Grandad did,
Unlike his Passengers, Screaming and Shouting.!
Unlike his Passengers, Screaming and Shouting.!
- Mikel
- Radio Addict
- Posts: 715
- Joined: 18 May 2009, 08:40
- Location: South East Wales IO81jo
Re: what about 169MHz for "VHF CB"?
There is a group (not me!) around the South Wales, West Country area using the channels below and have been for a while now.
Channel 8 (143.875) is the calling channel.
As you probably all know, these channels have traditionally been used illegally for many years by para-gliders, hang-gliders, that type of thing but most of them seem to be using 446 these days, as very few of them seem want go down the legal route and pay to get an airband license.
Channel 8 (143.875) is the calling channel.
As you probably all know, these channels have traditionally been used illegally for many years by para-gliders, hang-gliders, that type of thing but most of them seem to be using 446 these days, as very few of them seem want go down the legal route and pay to get an airband license.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
................................................................................................2W0NBF.........................................................
-
- Super Member
- Posts: 257
- Joined: 23 Nov 2017, 20:14
- Call Sign: 26DG01
- Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Devon
Re: what about 169MHz for "VHF CB"?
They'd have 22 channels if they used 12.5kHz...
Sent from my GP300 using DTMF
- Mikel
- Radio Addict
- Posts: 715
- Joined: 18 May 2009, 08:40
- Location: South East Wales IO81jo
Re: what about 169MHz for "VHF CB"?
Yes that's true, the table I posted is the old 'paraglider' table that the locals sent to me so it does not have to be strictly followed, it was just the restraints of the available radio equipment at the time.
The airsport guys who were originally using this allocation totally illegally, started many years ago, long before OFCOM existed and at the time the modified 2m ham radios radios they were using were 25 kHz so the bandplan has 'stuck' and remains unchanged to this day.
The story goes that Rod Buck who at the time was the 'British Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association' (BHPA) Radio Officer negotiated with the Radiocommunications Agency (RA) who were the body in charge before OFCOM took over in 2002.
The RA agreed to turn a blind to the paragliders using the allocation as long as they did not stray anywhere else. Even to this day when new airsport guys start the hobby they are taught to use this bandplan.
One of the locals near me who is also a licensed ham radio operator told me that he had to explain to his trainers when he started paragliding that the allocation was not actually legal for them to use, because they were not aware of this fact!.
By the way the legendary Rod Buck also invented the Wendy Windblows weather reporting system in the 1980's and was well ahead of his time in that respect because it was the first reliable electronic weather station to offer a subscription service covering multiple sites. but sadly he passed away aged 71 in 2020.
The bizzare thing is that the paragliding community have pirated this band for so many years and the enforcing authority (RA and later OFCOM) have never bothered them.
Saying that it is a long time since I heard any paraglider activity on this band and the last one I heard overhead was pre Covid and he was using pmr446 for air to ground comms so maybe that is where they have gone these days or use the official licensed airband allocation.
................................................................................................2W0NBF.........................................................
-
- Super Member
- Posts: 170
- Joined: 21 Feb 2011, 22:20
- Call Sign: 26TM5890
Re: what about 169MHz for "VHF CB"?
In Australia they have UHF CB for many years; maybe start lobbying at BoJo to get it? And why reinventing the wheel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHF_CB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHF_CB
Elecraft K2
President Grant II Premium
President Grant II Premium
- bigpimp347
- Legend
- Posts: 8792
- Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 10:23
- Location: J26 Nottingham
Re: what about 169MHz for "VHF CB"?
we have 16 channels on 446 (32 if you use it correctly)26TM5890 wrote: ↑26 Jul 2021, 07:43 In Australia they have UHF CB for many years; maybe start lobbying at BoJo to get it? And why reinventing the wheel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHF_CB
what more do you want ??
I want to Die Asleep like my Grandad did,
Unlike his Passengers, Screaming and Shouting.!
Unlike his Passengers, Screaming and Shouting.!
- Mikel
- Radio Addict
- Posts: 715
- Joined: 18 May 2009, 08:40
- Location: South East Wales IO81jo
Re: what about 169MHz for "VHF CB"?
We used to have UHF CB in the UK as well but the Govt. took it off us in 1998.26TM5890 wrote: ↑26 Jul 2021, 07:43 In Australia they have UHF CB for many years; maybe start lobbying at BoJo to get it? And why reinventing the wheel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHF_CB
TBH around here people are buying BAOFENG radios on flea-bay etc and just rocking and rolling on any frequency they like, and this includes well known big businesses doing the same.
Not that i'm condoning anyone to do this but the chance of OFCOM catching anyone are pretty slim. Sadly it's become a bit chaotic just like society in general.
................................................................................................2W0NBF.........................................................
-
- Super Member
- Posts: 257
- Joined: 23 Nov 2017, 20:14
- Call Sign: 26DG01
- Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Devon
Re: what about 169MHz for "VHF CB"?
I think this is what 446 is going to become, either via official Ofcom sanction or lack thereof. Starting with 8 channels, we now have:26TM5890 wrote: ↑26 Jul 2021, 07:43 In Australia they have UHF CB for many years; maybe start lobbying at BoJo to get it? And why reinventing the wheel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHF_CB
16 channels on FM (and DMR phase 1);
32 channels on dPMR;
External antennas allowed if compliant.
That's basically a CB system.
Sent from my GP300 using DTMF
- Otter
- Veteran
- Posts: 3363
- Joined: 04 Apr 2008, 21:42
- Call Sign: 26TM439
Re: what about 169MHz for "VHF CB"?
Legal 5W+, more channels, any sort of antenna.bigpimp347 wrote: ↑26 Jul 2021, 08:16we have 16 channels on 446 (32 if you use it correctly)26TM5890 wrote: ↑26 Jul 2021, 07:43 In Australia they have UHF CB for many years; maybe start lobbying at BoJo to get it? And why reinventing the wheel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHF_CB
what more do you want ??
"To this day the words Stirling bridge conjour pride in every Scotsman's heart, while to an Englishman those same words conjour literally no feelings at all." - Cunk on Britain S1 E1
- bigpimp347
- Legend
- Posts: 8792
- Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 10:23
- Location: J26 Nottingham
Re: what about 169MHz for "VHF CB"?
show me anyone who uses 446 legally
i can go on and hear a group nearly every day up to 50 miles away,
if there was to be a UHF CB band just open 446 up to 5w and external antennas.
That said it'll end up like CB 27Mhz, with everyone on it for a week or two before they all sit on the call channel running 50w or 75w from their shack in a box radios with X510 (the CBers choice antenna)
Last edited by bigpimp347 on 27 Jul 2021, 16:22, edited 1 time in total.
I want to Die Asleep like my Grandad did,
Unlike his Passengers, Screaming and Shouting.!
Unlike his Passengers, Screaming and Shouting.!
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 1089
- Joined: 10 Jun 2007, 22:41
- Call Sign: G4RMT
- Location: North East Suffolk
- Contact:
Re: what about 169MHz for "VHF CB"?
169 is very busy during large scale events when lots of radio users need extra allocations, and there are legacy system in the band that still use it, subject to non interference.
There seems to be no valid reason for a band to be made available outside the international agreements. You can imagine the comments OFCOM would have privately. They know CB on HF is poorly populated. They know that 446 is largely used as very short range business and has CB activity illegally. They know the take up of digital 446 wasn't exactly a rush. They are aware that the legitimate users don’t seem inconvenienced. What on earth would make a case for an extra band? The argument seems to be the illegal users are inconvenienced by legitimate users, and the radio enthusiasts simply don’t wish to use the ham system, but have a new one. Their stealing of 446 isnt good enough? What do they actually want? A quiet band? A lower frequency one with maybe a few summer lifts?
Nobody has made a case for any legitimate need at all. I’m not anti a new allocation, but how many people would use it? What’s the point. What need cannot be serviced by CB now or the illegal 446 use?
I lost my radio mic allocation. The government paid me compensation for my useless equipment. Then, they backtracked a little because timescales were a problem and they sold me back at a crazy low price the surrendered equipment subject to it suddenly being useless when the new phone system started. I still have it, and the interference is not in this area, everywhere, so I still have a few channels and the next door free allocation.
Radio mics are part of my business, and finding space for them needs OFCOM to do a lot of work finding space. If a radio mic channel needs finding that would fit loads of comms channels then the comms has to go somewhere else.
The industry made a really good case, with proper technical evidence and didn’t get everything. How would individuals ever be able to make a national case?
OFCOM know about illegal 446 and seem content to officially not know. If people are content breaking the law at the moment and the authorities turn a blind eye, is that not enough?
There seems to be no valid reason for a band to be made available outside the international agreements. You can imagine the comments OFCOM would have privately. They know CB on HF is poorly populated. They know that 446 is largely used as very short range business and has CB activity illegally. They know the take up of digital 446 wasn't exactly a rush. They are aware that the legitimate users don’t seem inconvenienced. What on earth would make a case for an extra band? The argument seems to be the illegal users are inconvenienced by legitimate users, and the radio enthusiasts simply don’t wish to use the ham system, but have a new one. Their stealing of 446 isnt good enough? What do they actually want? A quiet band? A lower frequency one with maybe a few summer lifts?
Nobody has made a case for any legitimate need at all. I’m not anti a new allocation, but how many people would use it? What’s the point. What need cannot be serviced by CB now or the illegal 446 use?
I lost my radio mic allocation. The government paid me compensation for my useless equipment. Then, they backtracked a little because timescales were a problem and they sold me back at a crazy low price the surrendered equipment subject to it suddenly being useless when the new phone system started. I still have it, and the interference is not in this area, everywhere, so I still have a few channels and the next door free allocation.
Radio mics are part of my business, and finding space for them needs OFCOM to do a lot of work finding space. If a radio mic channel needs finding that would fit loads of comms channels then the comms has to go somewhere else.
The industry made a really good case, with proper technical evidence and didn’t get everything. How would individuals ever be able to make a national case?
OFCOM know about illegal 446 and seem content to officially not know. If people are content breaking the law at the moment and the authorities turn a blind eye, is that not enough?
- Andy
- Top Poster
- Posts: 2114
- Joined: 01 Jun 2004, 09:00
- Location: Cheshire
- Contact:
Re: what about 169MHz for "VHF CB"?
Paul, you mention 'illegal CB activity' on 446. Genuine question - what is that? I thought 446 WAS a licence-free CB allocation? Or is it to do with power levels and big antennas?
'SOMEONE GET ME A SAW!'
Andy.
Andy.