What modes can i use on UHF CB?

[railscan]

From many years working in law enforcement and law administration, I can say that in barrister terms, that is about $2000 that has been added to your bill...

R

[Vkfour]

Oh my, that is beautiful to read!

I am quite good to look at too, in fact, I am the best looking fellow in my street, but then my wife points out, that apart from some cats and the odd kangaroo, I am the only fellow in my street!!!!

[Vkfour]

From many years working in law enforcement and law administration, I can say that in barrister terms, that is about $2000 that has been added to your bill...

R

Nah, this one's on the house. That way, no thieving instructing solicitor can get a fee either!!!

[Nunya-Biz]

Attention - ‘Vkfour’

Hmmm,


At no stage did I assert my qualifications, nor did I lean hard on my extensive life experience either - instead I pressed forward with nothing other than irrefutable facts.

The facts derived from the exact same legal instrument that you yourself also referred to.

For you to then carp on-and-on about how one is to interpret Federal Acts and Regulations, and then completely misinterpret the literal plain english contained within the most recent version of the ‘Radiocommunications (Citizen Band Radio Stations) Class Licence 2015’ - baffles me beyond belief.

Before any of your Lap-Dogs on the side also choose to leap on in, might I suggest that each of you download your very own copy of the recently enacted ‘Radiocommunications (Citizen Band Radio Stations) Class Licence 2015’ - from BELOW ;

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L00876


I challenge each of you take a read - and in doing so, thus discover that it won’t be long before each of you are also forced to acknowledge that every single one of my assertions hold true - whereas each of Vkfour’s assertions, belong exactly where he is currently located, and that is - in the middle of nowhere.


Again, I assert that it is PERFECTLY LEGAL to engage any form of encryption on UHF CB - so long as the following parameters are met ;

- The model of UHF CB being used, is limited to equipment certified under AS/NZS 4365:2011,
- This equipment isn’t modified in any way,
- All emissions are also strictly bound to be either F3E or G3E in type, ( either FM or PM ), and also comply with the associated maximum bandwidth allowances,
- And any 'encrypted transmissions' are not heard on any Repeater, on the Call Channel, on any of the Data/Telemetry Channels, on Channels 61, 62, or 63, or on any Emergency Frequency.


All of this information is VERY CLEARLY SPELLED OUT, right there within the current ‘Radiocommunications (Citizen Band Radio Stations) Class Licence 2015’.

I’m happy to help all of you along;

Let’s start on Page 3, Section 1, Item 5 ( Class Licence ), Subsection 2 -

From here, take careful note of the parameters of operation that are permitted, particularly those additionally referred to in Schedule 1, Items 1, 2, 3 and 7 - outlined on Page 8 and beyond.

This should make it clear as to which channels are permitted for direct 'UHF CB Station'-to-'UHF CB Station' communications, ( in particular, the limitations presented within the Restrictions attached to Schedule 1, Part 3, Item 7 - found on Page 11 and beyond... )

Thus interpreted to mean, the prescribed Emission Types, allowed Power Levels, and permitted Frequencies - being ;

- FM or PM
- 5 Watts
- No to Repeater Inputs or Outputs, the Call Channel, both Emergency Channel(s) ( Input or Output ), or Channels 22 and 23 / 61, 62 and 63


With this now made clear, let’s now tackle ‘encryption’ ;

Turn to Page 4, Section 6, Paragraph (c) - and then for each of you Muppets, take careful note at precisely how ‘Vkfour’ not only misquoted and thus mislead each of you, but also FAILED TO COMPREHEND THIS CRITICAL POINT HIMSELF.

Some Barrister...


Paragraph (c) makes it very clear that encryption is in fact PERFECTLY LEGAL, so long as it occurs in a fashion that complies with the additionally specified limitations of (i) and (ii) - and that being,

(i) - Interpreted to mean, no encryption permitted on 27MHz Channels 9, 11 or 16, or UHF CB Channels 11, 5, or 35.
(ii) - Interpreted to mean, no encryption permitted through any CB Repeater Station.

Couple the limitations of (ii) - to also then include the fact that you are more than likely to be in range of at least ONE UHF CB Repeater, and thus should also then apply the limitations already stated and discussed above, from Page 3 -

...Interpreted to mean - No communications to be established on any UHF CB Repeater Input or Output Channel -

- And there you have it, 100% fully legally compliant encryption on UHF CB -


Circling back to more of your ridiculous statements, as quoted ;

'Vkfour' wrote;
Operating a CB station to transmit audio tones
A person, when operating a CB station to transmit audio tones for initiating communications with another CB station, must:
(a) on a carrier frequency mentioned in item 1, 2 or 3 of Schedule 1, only transmit audible tones for less than 3 seconds in any period of 60 seconds; or
(b) on a carrier frequency mentioned in item 4, 5, 7 or 8 of Schedule 1, only transmit:
(i) audible tones for less than 3 seconds in any period of 60 seconds; or
(ii) subaudible tones.
Note Subaudible tones are used in continuous tone coded squelch systems (CTCSS).

And that is why it is illegal to do so, but before I move on, the GME TX655, and similar UHF CB radios uses audio frequency inversion scrambling. It is legal, it is not digital and not encrypted and can be heard by anyone with similar equipment.

Needless to say, I would have very little difficulty in making an utter fool of you in any Court - be it Magistrate, County or High - as I in turn demonstrate that this portion of the Class Licence you are referring to, is obviously referring to the limitations that apply to the legal utilisation of SELCALL, and not encryption.

Only one thing worse than a 'preachy' VK-Ticket Holder, is one that asserts that he's also 'a qualified professional'...

( Not to mention that contained within this quote of yours, I can by direct extension, assert that it is also perfectly legal to modulate a continuous FM carrier - with encryption that is superimposed upon a Sub-audible tone as well... )


While I’m at it - the topic of ‘Analogue Voice-Inversion’, thus contained within the GME TX-655 ;

The permitted certification of the GME TX-655 has utterly nothing to do with its specific implementation of ‘Analogue Voice-Inversion’, instead of using Digital Voice-Encryption - as the GME TX-655 uses ‘Analogue Voice-Inversion’, simply because they are built to a price-point - nothing more.


In conclusion, may I suggest a little less rebuttal without fact, even less assertions of your prior apparent ( perhaps lack of ) legal qualifications - and maybe in fact, even more study to actually procure a relevant and/or recognised legal qualification to begin with?

Given your demonstrated lack of capability to interpret, let alone even comprehend, a basic CB Class Licence, I am truly saddened by the fact that you are now actually ‘retired’.

I say this, as I would really have loved to have had the opportunity to face you in Court - and utterly decimate your plainly obvious lack of capability in this field.

( You also mentioned an 'early retirement' - Is this statement of yours 'Queensland-legalese' for a Court-imposed mandated removal - for legal malpractice? )


Instead, may I suggest that you seriously consider handing in your VK-Ticket immediately - as I now have substantial concerns surrounding your probable inability to also suitably comprehend your legal obligations, spelled out within the ‘Radiocommunications Licence Conditions (Amateur Licence) Determination 2015’ either...

As far as I’m concerned, you’re obviously as much a danger to yourself, as you are to those around you - when it comes to safely operating an Amateur Station.

( Thank God that none of your cluelessly launched emissions have any chance of affecting the safety of my life! )

I strongly suggest to each of you in the future, that you obtain the facts yourself, all before falling in behind a Muppet and then chiming in to boot.

Get your facts straight - then stand on your hind legs.

As to do so, demonstrates the difference between being a proud Dingo and being a moronic Lap-Dog...

Needless to say - School is definitely OUT -

[Radio_Australia]

[Phil]

A reminder to all members that attacks on other members will not be tolerated, any further derogatory comments to any other member on these forums will result in the post being edited or deleted and your account being locked for lengthy periods of time.

[railscan]

Wow, someone needs a dose of caster oil...

R

[Nunya-Biz]

You should have seen it before it was 'Moderator-Edited'…

[dags19]

just delete the whole topic what a wast of time even reading this topic

[Nunya-Biz]

Yup, nice one 'dags19' - real nice...

Somebody comes along and with little difficulty, highlights the blatant misinformation 'declared as fact' that was previously posted by a Senior Member - and your response?

'This is all a bit too confronting - so we better delete this entire Topic - After all, we can't have one of our most respected Senior Members being shown up this way, can we?'

Whatever.

Go on then - Go right ahead.

Delete the entire Topic.


Never mind the fact that the actual information contained within this Topic, ( now ) stands as relevant, ( now ) stands as true - and most importantly, stands also as testament as to how to hold people accountable to their statements - when you know they are wrong.


How 'bout this instead?

My challenge still stands, begging a response…

…and yet still - ( With the exception of yourself ), Nothing since posted here at all from Vkfour, railscan, Phantom, michael, peteramjet, Yipyip46, madmarto, emergen, gordo92, or youngn - that objectively challenges my assertions.

Irrefutably, every single one of the 'key players' from this group, have all seen this Topic within the last couple of days - ( as laid out via this link ) ;
http://www.aussiescanners.com.au/forum/ ... 7117&f=213

- and still nothing…

I would have expected by now, that the apparent decades of accumulated 'Legal Expertise' from Vkfour's qualified ( ? ) perspective, should have in turn - resulted with him delivering yet another sharp, swift, stinging and 'pithy response' - putting me 'rightfully' back in my place…

But nothing -

Even after PM'ing him directly - He has decided to back away completely from publicly defending his prior Posting.
( Of which I have dutifully taken a Screenshot of, in case he tries to edit it… )

And with good reason - HE WAS WRONG.


Forums are great places to quickly accumulate knowledge that otherwise, would require a commitment of years to acquire from a University or College.

But they're only useful if the knowledge presented ;
- is able to be PROVEN as factual,
- is debated when doubted,
- and is corrected when clearly demonstrated to be wrong.

This Forum can either be held in reverence 'as a place where the information presented within it, can be relied upon' - or, it can be no different to the information presented, ( meaning redacted / edited / suppressed ), in places like Russia or China - presented as such, just to preserve the 'dignity' of a select few who perpetually avoid inconvenient truths...

Of each version this Forum could be - I care little.


What I do care about, is actually hearing back 'from a certain someone' right here, publicly within this Topic - displaying any form of opposing response to mine, that is in fact FACTUAL.

And to this person I say, 'Bring it - or be gone...'

[Vkfour]

I haven't backed away, just preparing a response.

[Nunya-Biz]

Excellent.

Nothing beats healthy debate…


( Might I suggest specifically backing your assertions this time, by quoting CORRECTLY, [ meaning 'in-full' and 'in context' ], from any of the legal instruments you attempt to use - when attempting to back your position...? )

Backpedal #1 ;
- Explain yourself out of your misquote from the relevant Class Licence in question, from Page 4, Section 6, Paragraph 'c'.
( By deliberately ( ? ) leaving out the limitations of (i) and (ii)… )

Backpedal #2 ;
- Explain yourself out of your blatant misinterpretation from the same Class Licence above, from Page 5, Section 7
( By failing to grasp the fact that this Section of the Class Licence is referring to the permitted and legal utilisation of SELCALL, and not encryption… )

Once you've explained your way out of these misgivings - have at it, when attempting to then additionally prove me wrong.

- Good Luck -

[novaboy032]

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[novaboy032]

You guys, keeping it real. [GRINNING FACE WITH SMILING EYES]

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Nunya-Biz]

novaboy032


This 'contribution' of yours - [ plus 'Radio_Australia's' awesome Pic ] -

Nothing short of brilliant, just brilliant...

[novaboy032]

Backing you for the win [FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY]

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Nunya-Biz]

Listen, to be frank I really hope, ( for his own sake ), he's able to pull a 'Rabbit-from-a-Hat'…

But, short of pulling one of the biggest 'legal favours' in the history of Australian Law, ( and that being - managing to convene 'an emergency Parliamentary out-of-session National Security Mandate' to enact a change to the Radiocommincations Act ) - he's screwed…

( Especially, considering that the ability to 'pull this kind of favour' has probably already expired - given that he's allegedly a 'retired Senior Counsel', who apparently has in fact, 'practised in the Federal Courts'… )


There's no getting around it -

1) - He completely misquoted, ( deliberately -? ), the parameters within the Class Licence surrounding the legality of utilising encryption.
( See above quotes of his surrounding Section 6, Paragraph 'c' - found on Page 4 of the Class Licence. )

2) - He utterly, thoroughly and completely misinterpreted the intended meaning of Section 7 - found on Page 5 of the same Class Licence - regarding the legal utilisation of SELCALL as that instead - concerning the right to legally engage 'encryption'.
( Again, it's plain to see this folly as well, all immortalised forever within this Topic… )


He'd also need to tread REAL CAREFULLY, regarding any response he attempts to mount -

As I've already rustled up an Army of my own Legally-Sharp daily associates of mine, all poised, and all set to tear him 'a new one' - if he even dares postulating any ridiculous statements.

Be warned Champ - be a Man, not a Muppet - and just admit it when you've been caught with your pants down…

Go Ahead -OVER - Pssssht…


- We're all ready and waiting -

[railscan]

Hi i am going to set a test DPMR System on UHFCB And i am wondering if it is legal.
if DPMR Is not what modes can i use on 447? DMR? P25?
Thanks.

Aren't you sorry you asked?

R

[Phantom]

I think this topic has drifted enough and probably time to be closed before it spirals out of control (even more than it already has).

This thread is quite old from the OP - back in 2015!

[dags19]

I think this topic has drifted enough and probably time to be closed before it spirals out of control (even more than it already has).

This thread is quite old from the OP - back in 2015!

Totally agree