What modes can i use on UHF CB?

[43AT198]

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!

And to think just as I was starting to enjoying the free flowing mode of dissertations in this thread along comes a party pooper.

[dags19]

cmon there has to be one

[43AT198]

cmon there has to be one

I guess that order of popcorn will have to be cancelled now.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

[dags19]

keep it warm

[Nunya-Biz]

Radio_Australia, novaboy032 and 43AT198 - Relax, I've got this…


Attention - railscan ;

railscan wrote;

melbournefan wrote:
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

Mate, you've well and truly surrendered the right to just sit on the side and insert 'the occasional Wise-Crack…'

You lost this right, the second you parked yourself right next to Vkfour, with your very own considered legal opinions - found right there on Page 1 of this Topic.

Given that it appears that you too, can't seem to help yourself when it comes to 'pontificating your very own legal expertise' pretty well everywhere across this entire 'Site - ( especially when it comes to continuously highlighting your prior career as a Police Officer and Police Radio Dispatcher ), I'd appreciate it if you for the time being, chose to simply Pipe-down instead.

Champ, understand that your foot's stuck right there in the very same Bear-Claw Trap that Vkfour's foot is currently in, and as such - we'd all love it 'if you'd just sit still for the time being' - ( as we're all very keen to see if you too, end up in the same Dumpster that Vkfour's currently trying to avoid… )

By continuing to squirm around as you currently are, you're only making it harder for Vkfour.
( After all, every time you move - you move the same Bear-Claw Trap that he's also in. )

So C'mon now, sit still Son - It's hardly fair to distract Vkfour, with your very own 'yelps for help'…



Attention - Phantom ;

Sigh…

Phantom wrote;
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!

Firstly, the Topic hasn't drifted one iota.

The Topic's heading is - 'What modes can I use on UHF CB' - within which the OP then originally asked;

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.

To which Comint replied;

The Class Licence states F3E or G3E only,
which means Angle Modulation ONLY,
which means Analogue ONLY.

Emission Designators F3E and G3E
F = Frequency Modulation
G = Phase Modulation
3 = Analogue
E = Telephony ie., Voice

The OP then responded with;

Thanks for that comit, is there any way to transmit digital without a vk anywhere?

To which Vkfour then made the mistake of responding with;

Nope!

( Where obviously, the OP is fully entitled to utilise ANY of the Licence-free ISM Bands to achieve this… )


Next in que, incorrectly was you, with;

Clearly by asking such, you have not read the regs.
Also, having such equipment for which you are not appropriately licensed for, is also illegal

Followed in quick succession by more and more of Vkfour's ridiculous assertions…

…at the end of which, began with me deciding to hold each of you ACCOUNTABLE.


Now, I can't see anywhere - anywhere at all - where the Topic has appeared to drift 'anywhere' other than stay BANG-ON-TRACK.


Secondly, I also find it laughable that you additionally assert that this topic appears to be 'spiralling out of control…'

There you are, literally congratulating Vkfour's first monster babble of a blundering, right there at the bottom of Page 1;

Oh my, that is beautiful to read!

…and once I respond, ( admittedly with Moderator-Editing applied, but nonetheless with FACT ), all of a sudden - there you stand with a Red-Card.

( That's not 'hypocrisy' I smell, is it…? )

Maybe once Vkfour finally returns and is forced to admit defeat, ( and in the process, hands in his VK-Ticket for good measure ), you too should hand in your Forum Moderator guernsey while you're at it…

- Because clearly, YOU'RE WAY TOO ONE-EYED to handle this responsibility -

If I catch you carrying on in this fashion any further, then make no mistake - the Forum Owner will be the first to hear from me - concerning your abundantly obvious bias and blatantly demonstrated lack of impartiality.


Finally, Your conclusions concerning the apparent age of this Thread also bear zero relevance.

There are numerous examples found across the 'Site, where plenty of people have 'resurrected' Old Topics, and I haven't seen one single example of you also standing right there to lock any of these Threads down either...


Phantom, I'm no fool - so why make yourself out to be one instead?

Surely, Spanky - It's time.
It's 'High-Time' for you to pull your head in.



Attention - dags19 ;

My friend, I've already had words with each of you on Page 2 of this Topic, concerning exactly how not to be a Lap-Dog.
But if this truly is the path you wish to tread - then by all means, have at it.

Just remember that by continuing to jog down this road, you're only demonstrating your desire to insist that this Forum should become more-so Stalin-esk - thus painting you in the very same shade of shame.



Anyway - you all need to just STEP OFF.

After all, Vkfour's already made it clear on Page 2 - that he's right in the middle of assembling his response -

So to each of you, don't be so 'Take-my-Bat-and-Ball-and-Go-Home' now - as it'd be a real shame to deny a man his right of reply…


If School's obviously OUT - Why am I still Teachin'?

[Yipyip46]

To the Forum Manager, Please do the rest of the Forum users a favour and lock this topic. I realize that the term Forum means a place for open discussion but this is going to far. We have users who have chips on their shoulders and want to nit pick. This is a classic example of why members of the legal profession are treated with contempt by the average Australian. This is also a classic example of why we have a legal system not a justice system. One person has an interpretation and opinion and they can not except that someone else may have another. Sir you are just going on about this TO MUCH. You have taken this beyond an open exchange of ideas. I see this as a personal argument between you and Vkfour and should be taken up on a personal level and left out of this forum. As for those who are sitting there egging this on maybe take a good hard look at yourselves. Regards Yipyip

[Vkfour]

Dear Mr Nunya-Biz,

My, you are an extremely persistent, and rather impatient chap, aren’t you? And all because I haven’t answered your last post, and from one of your recent post, you seem to see this as some sort of victory on your part, or a concession of defeat on mine. For the benefit of all people here gathered, lets have a look at the time line.

Your very first post ever, appeared on December 5th , 2016, to which I responded on December 6th, 2016. Then, nothing is heard from you until January 13th, 2017, so what was happening during those 38 days? Did you have other things to do? Maybe you were working? Maybe you were musing in your philosophical peregrinations concerning this matter? Spending time with your mates and family? I don’t know, but you’re not the only person to be otherwise occupied and unable to attend to things you’d to like in a timely manner.

Now, my response is at hand, but I do intend to treat your utterly contemptuous comments concerning myself personally, and professionally, with the contempt that they deserve and completely ignore them and focus on the subject of the original question posed and its following posts.

It appears that things were flowing fairly smoothly until it was dared to be suggested that the original correspondent, one Mr Melbournefan, should read the regulations and that maybe some equipment may not in fact, be legal. On reflection, that response may have been delivered rather more bluntly than may have been intended by Mr Phantom, but I am sure he meant no offence, and no, I don't know the gentleman personally. My response was to point out the illegality of possessing and using equipment without a licence, and then Cyclone Nunya-Biz come in, swinging too no less, telling me to calm down and that my response to Mr Melbournefan’s second question, hold on, I’ll quote you …

“…couldn't be further from the truth if you tried!”

From the Radio Communications Act, Commonwealth of Australia 1992, effective 1st of July, 1993, commences at page 74 on my copy.

Part 3.1—Unlicensed radiocommunications
Division 1—Offences
46 Unlicensed operation of radiocommunications devices
(1) Subject to section 49, a person must not operate a
radiocommunications device otherwise than as authorised by:
(a) a spectrum licence; or
(b) an apparatus licence; or
(c) a class licence.
Penalty:
(a) if the radiocommunications device is a radiocommunications
transmitter:
(i) if the offender is an individual—imprisonment for 2
years; or
(ii) otherwise—1,500 penalty units; or
(b) if the radiocommunications device is not a
radiocommunications transmitter—20 penalty units.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person has a reasonable
excuse.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in
subsection (2) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code)

47 Unlawful possession of radiocommunications devices
(1) Subject to section 49, a person must not have a
radiocommunications device in his or her possession for the
purpose of operating the device otherwise than as authorised by:
(a) a spectrum licence; or
(b) an apparatus licence; or
(c) a class licence.
Penalty:
(a) if the radiocommunications device is a radiocommunications
transmitter:
(i) if the offender is an individual—imprisonment for 2
years; or
(ii) otherwise—1,500 penalty units; or
(b) if the radiocommunications device is not a
radiocommunications transmitter—20 penalty units.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person has a reasonable
excuse.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in
subsection (2) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).

48 Additional provisions about possession of radiocommunications
devices
(1) Without limiting section 47, a person is taken, for the purposes of
that section, to have a radiocommunications device in his or her
possession for the purpose of operation if it is in his or her
possession, otherwise than for the purpose of supply to another
person, and can be operated merely by doing one or more of the
following:
(a) connecting the device to an electric power supply by means
of an electric plug or other electrical connection;
(b) connecting a microphone to the device by inserting a
microphone plug into the device;
(c) switching on the device;
(d) switching on any other equipment relevant to the device’s
operation;
(e) adjusting settings by manipulating the device’s external
switches, dials or other controls;
(f) connecting the device to an antenna.
(2) Subsection (1) only applies in the absence of any evidence to the
contrary.
(3) A reference in this Division to a person having a
radiocommunications device in his or her possession includes a
reference to the person having it under control in any place
whatever, whether for the use or benefit of that person or another
person, and although another person has the actual possession or
custody of it.

(A penalty unit currently stands at $180).

Section 46 clearly states that it is illegal to operate a transmitter without the benefit of one of the three categories of licence mentioned.

Section 47 clearly states that it is illegal to be in possession of a transmitter without the benefit of one of the three categories of licence mentioned.

Section 48 explains what is meant by, “for the purposes of transmitting”, and quite neatly closes the door on just about any excuse a person may come up with for having the device in their possession, with the exception of those given in the document. Generally speaking, there doesn’t appear to be too much wriggle room, and by the way, there are only three categories of licence available.

But wait a minute, what about this section 49 that is referred to in section 46 and 47? "I know, there’s something in it and he has deceptively left it out because it doesn’t suit the purpose". Sorry, did I leave it out?

49 Emergency operation etc. of radiocommunications devices
(1) A person does not contravene section 46 or 47 by operating a
radiocommunications device, or having a radiocommunications
device in his or her possession, in the reasonable belief that the
operation or possession was necessary for the purpose of:
(a) securing the safety of a vessel, aircraft or space object that
was in danger; or
(b) dealing with an emergency involving a serious threat to the
environment; or
(c) dealing with an emergency involving risk of death of, or
injury to, persons; or
(d) dealing with an emergency involving risk of substantial loss
of, or substantial damage to, property.
(2) In proceedings for an offence against section 46 or 47, the burden
of proving any of the matters referred to in subsection (1) lies on
the defendant.
(3) Nothing in this section limits the scope of the expression
“reasonable excuse” in section 46 or 47.

As can be seen, it deals with emergencies and even then, they have to be fairly serious to qualify.

Now, lets have a look at the original question posed, can digital modes be used on CB?

Quoting from the Radiocommunications (Citizen Band Radio Stations) Class Licence 2015

F3E means an emission whose basic characteristic is that of a frequency modulated carrier on a single channel containing primarily analogue telephony information.

G3E means an emission whose basic characteristic is that of a phase modulated carrier on a single channel containing primarily analogue telephony information.

lower sideband, or LSB, means an SSB radio emission for which the sideband above the carrier is suppressed.
telecommunications network has the same meaning as in the Telecommunications Act 1997.

upper sideband, or USB, means an SSB radio emission for which the sideband below the carrier is suppressed.

F means frequency modulated, G means phase modulated, (it used to be P), 3 means analogue, and E means telephony. There are no other emission designators listed for any other mode. Just plain, good, old fashioned, plain vanilla FM with a cherry on top. The only conclusion can be that only analogue FM is permitted.

Now, this brings up the question of data transmission, and for that I draw everyone’s attention to the actual licence document. This is supposed to be mandatory reading for anyone using CB, but I would be surprised if too many people have seen one, let alone read it.

Telemetry and telecommand

Telemetry is the process of obtaining measurements and relaying them at a distant point. Telecommand is the electronic remote control of equipment.
Examples include:

1. monitoring water levels in dams
2. controlling equipment such as irrigation pumps
3. opening and closing gates.

The CBRS class licence authorises the use of telemetry and telecommand applications on UHF channels 22 and 23.

Compliance with standards

Devices operating under the class licence must comply with all relevant radiocommunications standards. 'Standard' in this context means a standard made under section 162 of the Radiocommunications Act 1992 (the Act).

Breaches of licence conditions

CB radio users must comply with all conditions in the class licence. Section 132(3) of the Act provides that:

'Operation of a radiocommunications device is not authorised by a class licence if it is not in accordance with the conditions of the licence.'

If you breach any condition of the class licence (for example, operating on a frequency not mentioned in the class licence, or using an emergency channel for non-emergency purposes) you are no longer authorised under the class licence and may be liable for prosecution.

Uses not permitted

Other types of data operation, such as Packet Radio, are not permitted on CB bands.

Voice communications is not permitted on UHF CB channels 22 and 23.

Telemetry and telecommand is not permitted on any channel other than UHF CB channels 22 and 23.

Again the entire section is reproduced lest it be said that I was cheating in some way, or had something to hide. Whilst the section does deal with Telemetry and Telecommand, it quite clearly states that, “Other types of data operation, such as Packet Radio, are not permitted on CB bands”. Please note that bands is plural, and thus the HF band is included.

“Other types of data operation, such as Packet Radio, are not permitted on CB bands” is what is known as an edjusdem generis. Now I am sure that some of you know what this is, but some don’t have fine legal minds so allow me to explain.

Ejusdem generis means, “of the same kind, class or nature”. It occurs when a specific word, or group of words, is preceded, or more usually succeeded, by a non specific word or group of words. The non specific words are then considered to be of the same kind, class or nature as the specific word or words. When you see things like, such as, and the like, and less formally, and the like, it is an ejusdem generis.

Packet radio, AX-25, is a pretty antiquated mode by now, but none the less it is a data mode, it is excluded, as are others modes you may come up with.

In one of your obviously well considered, and magnificently fascinating missives, you have quoted the class licence, so you accept that are such things? Stout man, well done.

Again from the CB class licence ...

Class licences

Class licences are issued by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA). Under a class licence, all users share the same spectrum segment and are subject to the same conditions. A class licence governs equipment standards and the frequencies that may be used, and can specify other technical and operational parameters. Class licences do not have to be applied for, and no licence fees are payable.

The use of devices covered by a class licence is subject to specific conditions in the class licence as well as the provisions of the Radiocommunications Act 1992 (the Act).

Note that this refers to class licences, plural, thus is relevant to all other class licences, and further “A class licence governs equipment standards and the frequencies that may be used, and can specify other technical and operational parameters”.

You can’t just use anything you like on them, assuming you have a legitimate reason according to the specific class licence to be there in the first place, only those conditions permitted. The modes of operation suggested by your good self are not permitted on any of the bands mentioned by yourself in, I think it was your first epistle.

Now to the knotty question of encryption, and I do admit I that I am in error. I did cut and paste the wrong section of the document, and I failed to adequately proof read what I had cut and pasted. I can see that error my have cause some of the angst found in these posts. For that I offer my sincere apologies, not a grovelling apology, just the ordinary type, because that is the moral, ethical and professional thing to do. From memory, (it was a long time ago afterall), I was attempting to show just how limited telemetry and telecommand were. There was certainly no intention to say that various things like DTMF and CTCSS and their more modern digital equivalents, were illegal. Again, I apologise for my tardiness in proof reading.

So far, we have been dealing with the Radcomm Act, but it is important to recognise that there are other legal instruments in both commonwealth and state law, where radio plays a role and conditions can be imposed on its use.

At various time in the past, state governments have set out to limit the use of two way radios in cars, but when the difficulty of policing it and separating the legitimate user from the not so legitimate user, they appear to have been quietly shelved. However, with a current emphasis on the role of driver distraction and inattention and its impact on the road toll, I feel that it will rear its head again soon.

More recently, we have seen a chap charged for allegedly interfering with aircraft communications. If the allegations are correct, and please note, he hasn’t been tried yet, it would seem apparent that there was a breech of the class licence governing most aircraft communications, but he is charged for allegedly breeching various aviation laws, not the Radcomm Act.

The Australian Government has always been suspicious, nervous and wary of people using codes and ciphers over the radio, especially from the early years of the last century when the Navy, not the PMG were the responsible regulatory authority, (it’s a long story), and consequently codes and ciphers were all but banned for ordinary folk unless a copy of the code, or details of the cipher and keys were made available to the regulatory authority. The situation remains the same today.

What!

But wait, there’s more, yes encryption is most definitely being used, and more and more often. In some cases, the government mandates the type of encryption is to be used, and thus has access to the cipher key. In other cases where a pretty standard, generally available cipher is used, the user merely supplies the ACMA with the relevant key.

If you want to build your own, super strong method of encryption, you can, but you can’t just arbitrarily put it into use. You have to first seek permission so to do, and in doing this, you have to be able to demonstrate that you have a legitimate reason for having your own method on account of no other method of encryption that meets your specific needs. If the regulatory authority agrees and grants such a request, the applicant is required to supply at least two of the encrypted devices to the ACMA. Either two transmitters and two receivers or more commonly, two transceivers, just so they can make sure you’re not doing anything naughty against the national interests.

The only encryption permitted on CB is either frequency inversion, which really isn’t encryption, and easily listened to, or Icom’s rolling code, which is really quite a common method. A CB set can not get type approval if it is equipped with any other methods.

And on that note gentle reader, we appear to have come to the end of this particular missive.

I would like to close Mr Nunya-Biz, by saying that there was no need to take a screen shot of your PM to me. I would not try to edit it in any way? There’s no point really because you sent it through this site, and if you have a look, it’s still there. Naturally I, or anyone else can’t see it, but you and the moderator can.

Go to the user control panel, select the Private Messages tab, and look for sent messages on the left hand side. Don’t mention it, it’s my pleasure.

[Blake]

...And that award for the largest wall of text on 'Aussie Scanners' goes to: Vkfour.
Sorry mate, couldn't resist

But in all seriousness, mods, please do lock this topic.
A reasonable discussion of ideas and opinions is what forums are all about.
But IMO, this has gone way beyond 'reasonable'.

[Vkfour]

I agree entirely.

[Nunya-Biz]

Not so fast -

After all, there's plenty more 'still to be discussed…'

Vkfour, Thank you.

Thank you for returning with something approaching what could be considered as a response, albeit unnecessarily bloated beyond belief.
( This specific issue, to be dealt with shortly. )



Starting from the very top of your response - Firstly, an apology -

It was a little pompous of me to expect a reply from you 'so soon', given that you have now just pointed out my very own twelve-inch mix of an absence - from the time between my first backhander to you last year, to when I then finally returned later this year - to give you yet another one.

Yup, you were utterly correct - I was indeed off enjoying the fun and festivities of both Christmas and New Year's, which included a fair proportion of time spent overseas.

So yes, a bit of the old 'Pot-calling-the-Kettle-Black' indeed -

Never mind though, because unlike my 38 day absence - my poking you for a response only occurred after I knew that you'd re-visited the Topic yourself, and still hadn't said anything - but I digress…

( I was gone for 38 days, and had no idea of what had unfolded in my absence - but within less than an hour of re-visiting the Topic, I had responded.
Whereas you however, knew exactly what was happening once I had returned, BUT THEN STILL TOOK A DAY AND A HALF TO RESPOND YOURSELF! )

Nice one - ( Trivial yes, but 'Nice One' nevertheless… )



Secondly, CONGRATULATIONS ;

Congratulations for the admission of fault to your follies and blunderings, per your previous misunderstanding of the Class Licence at hand.

A bit of a shame though, considering that this 'apology' of yours was buried so deep, ( and by this I mean BURIED REALLY DEEP ), within this final Uber-Babble of a response of yours.

( I'm still catching my breath, after the trouble I had to go through in order to find it - you know, having to set up a Deep Sea Drilling 'Rig and all… )


I find it poor form that you've only actually admitted to 'a cutting-and-pasting error', followed by 'a failure to proof-read' - and have still failed to clearly admit your shortcomings, surrounding my still irrefutable position that Voice Encryption on CB as clearly seen within the current Class Licence is 100% perfectly legal…

You contested this fact, right there on Page 1 - contained within your very first monster-babble of a blunder - and since then, I've relentlessly hounded you, continuing to assert my position as correct.

This in turn brings us to right here, with the only thing really coming back from you - now comprises of nothing but a poorly executed DODGE.

Go back and re-read what you stated at the bottom of Page 1.

Compare this to what is contained within 'your pathetic apology'.

The parameters stated within this apology, ( when attempting to justify your misgivings from the bottom of Page 1 ) - don't even make sense when held against these initial statements of yours -

Brilliant -



Thirdly, when moving further down into your response - I see that you're up to your old tricks again -

And that is, a continuance to again misquote 'out of context'…
( We've only just dealt with the first occurrence of this literally two seconds ago, with 'You-versus-the-Class-Licence'! )

To quote you from your latest rant;

It appears that things were flowing fairly smoothly until it was dared to be suggested that the original correspondent, one Mr Melbournefan, should read the regulations and that maybe some equipment may not in fact, be legal. On reflection, that response may have been delivered rather more bluntly than may have been intended by Mr Phantom, but I am sure he meant no offence, and no, I don't know the gentleman personally. My response was to point out the illegality of possessing and using equipment without a licence, and then Cyclone Nunya-Biz come in, swinging too no less, telling me to calm down and that my response to Mr Melbournefan’s second question, hold on, I’ll quote you …

“…couldn't be further from the truth if you tried!”

From this, you immediately launched into a massive tirade of pointless, and seemingly never ending quotes - from the current Radiocommunications Act.

What is it with you, and this continuing insistence to quote - with a lack of context?

Here's actually what I said from Page 1;

- I think you need to calm yourself down a tad, Champ -

Clearly the OP is asking how to 'reach beyond' the strict limitations of 63cm, ( UHF CB ), without having to face the mundanity of an Amateur Licence Exam…

( He made this VERY clear in his second question - )


Your specific response to his second question...

Originally posted by VKFour ; Nope!

…couldn't be further from the truth if you tried!

Context, Son - It's all about the context.

My line, '…couldn't be further from the truth if you tried!', is clearly tied to my assertion that you incorrectly answered the OP's second question - AND NOTHING ELSE.

Copious quotes from the Radiocommunications Act, and how this is even relevant at this point - baffles me once again beyond belief.

Now, before you decide to get all 'creative' and try and assert the relevance of pointing out the possibility that the OP, 'may have been in possession of equipment illegally…'

( In a pitiful attempt to justify why this entire and relentless onslaught of the Radiocommunications Act - has been quoted tirelessly within this latest response of yours - )

Still makes zero sense - as we are now well and truly, way beyond this.


Let's get something real clear - REAL FAST.

Vkfour - This entire discussion is now one hundred percent focused on the every word you stated at the bottom of Page 1, and has been for some 38 days now.

This was the very last thing you said in 2016, the very resounding reality that this entire Topic was left to ponder for the 38 days in my absence.
( The very statement that Phantom - in his capacity as a Forum Administrator no less - decided to also comment on… )


With this undeniable reality now made perfectly clear -

- Your every statement, ( from within your most recent attempt at recovery ), that quotes the Radiocommunications Act to monotony - bears utterly no relevance to this discussion, nothing whatsoever, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL IN FACT.

And here's why ;


For hopefully the final time, I still assert that it is 100% perfectly legal to engage Voice Encryption on 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.


Anybody complying with the above limitations, would then in turn be fully compliant with this Class Licence.

And by complying with the relevant Class Licence - ( and I quote from Vkfour's most recent Uber-Babble ) ;

Breaches of licence conditions

CB radio users must comply with all conditions in the class licence. Section 132(3) of the Act provides that:

'Operation of a radiocommunications device is not authorised by a class licence if it is not in accordance with the conditions of the licence.'

If you breach any condition of the class licence (for example, operating on a frequency not mentioned in the class licence, or using an emergency channel for non-emergency purposes) you are no longer authorised under the class licence and may be liable for prosecution.

And there it is - THERE YOU HAVE IT!

Make no mistake kids, If you are not in breach of the Class Licence conditions - then you will have little to fear from the Radiocommunications Act either.

As such, there goes almost half of Vkfour's Uber-Babble of a Post from above -

Poof, it's gone…



Moving forward ;

Regarding CB - At no point did I ever mention anything other than Voice Encryption.

I made zero reference to 'Telemetry', 'Telecommand', 'Data' or 'Packet Radio' - I already know the limitations of these when it comes to CB, I have always known these limitations, and because of this - I never mentioned them.

With this said, there goes any and every mention of 'Telemetry', 'Telecommand', 'Data', 'Packet Radio' and 'AX25' from Vkfour's Uber-Babble of a Post from above -

Poof, all this gone as well…

( …and just for good measure, additionally there goes his attempt at hiding an Anvil in a Boxing Glove, with his smarmy inclusion of 'ejusdem generis' while we're at it - )



Be warned - I get paid to do this.

Paid to drill right down to the bottom of the Jar and remove all erroneous and irrelevant material from arguments and discussions.

Pushing right into the very minutiae of issues - to then enable me to hold others legally accountable, when they have deliberately tried to otherwise 'evade' prosecution.


With all of the Radiocommunications Act wiped clean from your Post, and also every mention of anything to do with Data / Telemetry / Telecommand etc-etc also now obliterated - this over-bloated Uber-Babble of a Post of yours Vkfour, is now starting to get pretty damn thin on content.


Don't worry though, it's all coming to a very sharp and sudden stop my friend - as all you've got left in your bag of tricks it seems, appears to be 'emissions'.



F3E - Yup, we all know what it means.

But obviously, you don't know what it means by legal definition.


Again for the final time, ( as I've also previously asserted this, albeit more-so briefly ) ;

(1) - Grab a bog-stock, unmodified, legally compliant, off-the-shelf UHF CB.

(2) - Select your favourite UHF CB ‘Simplex-Channel’.

(3) - Plug a USB-Headset into your Computer.

(4) - While speaking into your Headset, engage your 'well-rounded capabilities' in encrypting the resulting CODEC2 Voice Packets that are now flowing - with your favourite Crypto Algorithm, ( from as weak as DES, right through to AES ), right there on your Computer.

(5) - Audio-couple the output of your Computer's Speaker, ( which is now singing these dulcet but encrypted CODEC2 Voice Packets ), across and into the Mic of your UHF CB.
Transmitting them to Air - with nothing more complicated than your hand squeezing the PTT on the Mic, while holding it in close proximity to your Computer's Speaker.

(6) - Enjoy the fact that you are now transmitting your Encrypted Voice, in a perfectly and legally defendable, ANALOGUE FORM - across an F3E, FM Carrier.

(7) - Ensure that the first phrase that you utter, ( now underneath your very own 'Cone-of-Silence' ), are words to the effect that Vkfour should have known better in the first place.

(8) - Have 'ready-at-your-side', your obviously next-in-line required 'right-of-reply' for Vkfour.

Inform him of a similar Class Licence, the very one that allows you to run AES Encryption on any of the ISM Bands in Australia - using anything as cheap and disposable as a Wi-Fi Adapter, all the way through to an Enterprise-Class Microwave Point-to-Point Infrastructure solution.

( Point out to him, that no Magistrate or Judge in this fine country of ours - will ever punish you for wearing a compliant Motorcycle Helmet when riding a Motorcycle, nor punish you when you wear the same Helmet when riding a bicycle either… )

Take a moment and think about it - it'll come to you, I promise.


Vkfour -

1x PROPER APOLOGY for your original blundering found at the bottom of Page 1, clearly defined within your very next Post.

1x FORMAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that my assertions surrounding Voice Encryption on CB, stand as validated.

1x POSTING ON YouTube, of you taking a cigarette lighter to your VK-Ticket - whenever you're ready…

…unless,

Unless you've still got that Rabbit-in-a-Hat still rattling around somewhere.

( Now, if it makes you feel any better - I'm happy to give you 38 Days to find one... )

[railscan]

Bloody hell!

Okay if it settles this sordid little thread and shuts you up, you are right, we are wrong. You are an expert on all things RF.

Happy?

R

[Nunya-Biz]

Happy-ish…

I'll be happy and done - when 'you know who' fronts up - and either exercises his very own right-of-reply, or in fact, complies with the final requests that I've made, found at the end of my last Post…

Given that specifically you, Phantom, Vkfour, and myself - along with the Forum's ultimate owners - all agreed to Unlock and then Re-open this Topic - ( so long as everyone 'behaved themselves' ), I'm now struggling to grasp your obvious lack of ability to respect this agreement.

As such - ( and if you yourself are in fact, genuinely looking to make me happy ) - then why don't you re-read the suggestion that I specifically made to you concerning how I'd like you to behave, found within my first Post at the top of this Page?

In the meantime, I'm content to just stay 'Happy-ish' - ( that is, until we all hear back from Vkfour, one-way-or-another… )

[railscan]

...and if you yourself are in fact, genuinely looking to make me happy ...concerning how I'd like you to behave

Go away! I cannot be bothered with you, this benign thread or this forum for that matter. Who the hell do you think you are to dictate to anyone how they should behave? You need to have a long hard look at yourself, because frankly what appears here is not pleasant.

The end as far as I am concerned.

R

[Nunya-Biz]

Absorbing this response of yours - I am utterly gob-smacked…

Clearly, everything contained within my last post - had absolutely nothing to do with you -

You had in fact, already been advised to park your comments elsewhere - while the 'Big Boys' debated the Topic to it's conclusion.

I'm certain that I myself will not face any discipline from the Forum Owners at this point, given your bizarre, subjective, uncalled-for and highly emotive responses.

I am extremely grateful that it is evident that you no longer serve as an active Member of any Police Force - given your obvious lack of ability to remain civil, constructive and objective.

Your final decision to depart this Forum, I feel - is a decision that may well ultimately be in the best interests of this 'Site.

Good day to you and Good Luck -

I truly wish you the very best in your future endeavours.


In the meantime, I will still maintain a keen and active desire to insist that in the end, only the facts count - and nothing else.

As such, I still await Vkfour's response to draw this Topic to it's inevitable close -

[comport1]

Alright keyboard warriors, take it out to the car park and sort it out like men!

Let's get back to Aussie Scanners yeah?? Wow, I can't believe it has gotten to this!

[redstar]

Uhf CB.

[Nunya-Biz]

Alright keyboard warriors, take it out to the car park and sort it out like men!

Let's get back to Aussie Scanners yeah?? Wow, I can't believe it has gotten to this!

comport1, I hear you.

Although at this stage - I'm pretty certain there isn't any real need for any 'Car Park Massacres'.


However, I am still quite keen to hear back from Vkfour - ( even if the only way possible, is in fact - delivered from within the confines of a Car Park… )

I kid - I kid -


I say this, as only an acknowledgement or response from him - is what will finally then allow this Topic to be put to rest for good.

( PS - LOVE your 'Avatar' by the way. Pretty damn funny! )

[peteramjet]

Context, Son - It's all about the context.

Ah, the irony.

Like any good solicitor or barrister (and I am neither suggesting you individually practice law, nor that if you did you would be in any way proficient) you are clouding the facts with erroneous and unrelated matters – baffling with BS, as some say. Let’s go back to the beginning….

Surely somebody of your obvious intellect would concede that from the text contained (despite spelling and grammatical errors) in the OP's message coupled with the title of his thread and the sub-forum on which the question was posted, that he was initially seeking information on what digital modes could be used on UHF CB (post #1). It would also be reasonable to assume that, as he specifically mentioned dPMR, DMR and P25, he was after an 'out-of-the-box' or 'plug-and-play' digital solution using known and readily available digital two-way radios – not an ad-hoc work around using external audio to synthesis voice from a digital format to be re-broadcast in analog using standard CB equipment.

The answer to his question was kept simple - digital cannot be used on UHF CB. This was understood by all involved in the thread in the context that you cannot use a digital two-way radio to communicate directly on UHF CB.

Clearly the OP understood, so sought further clarification on where he could transmit digital without a licence (post #4). Now we can't confirm with the OP as he hasn't replied, but taken in context with the question he posted and the content of the thread to that point, it would be reasonable to assume the OP was seeking to use readily available digital radios on modes similar to dPMR, DMR or P25, for voice communications on a band similar to UHF CB, without the need to apply for an individual licence.

The answer to his question was, again, simple - there is none. This was again understood by all involved in the thread, in the context that there are no bands where you can use a digital two-way radio without a licence.

You joined the discussion (some 18 odd months later – the ‘holy thread revival Batman’ meme could be appropriately inserted here) and claimed as an ‘as irrefutable fact‘ that the ISM bands would be suitable using easily obtained 'off-the-shelf' equipment for 'encryption' (post #13).

Encryption? Huh? What? Isn't it all about the context?

The topic was about digital modes and not about encryption. The context was clearly (well, clear to everybody but yourself) about using digital two-way radios directly on UHF CB or similar. After making some incorrect assertions about myself, you were asked to assist the OP with ways of using the digital modes he specified in the ISM band (post #18) - something you haven't yet done and won't do because it simply can't be done with 'off-the-shelf' equipment. Your comments in the same post about the using ad-hoc work around to transmit digital in analog via UHF CB were not given coverage by myself (and likely others) on the complete understanding that it was not a solution to the OP’s problem - as you say, it's all about the context!

VKfour, in the context if the thread, correctly stated digital modes cannot be used on UHF CB (post #19), something which had already been conceded by yourself by the fact you claimed an alternative in the ISM band (post #13).

Instead of simply agreeing that all replies up to that point were correct in respect to the context of the OP, you again replied claiming 'encryption' was perfectly legal (post #24).

Encryption? Again? Huh? But isn't it all about the context?

From there the tread has simply been a downward spiral, led by none other than yourself, in which the (all important) context of the thread completely changed - it's a fine example, as mentioned at the beginning, of the old baffle with BS.

Take some of your own advice Mr Nunya-Biz - it's all about the context.

And, in case it is not completely obvious, when taken in the context of this thread, you cannot use a digital two-way radio on UHF CB.

(BTW: I'm still waiting for you to provide information on this 'off-the-shelf' voice communication device in the ISM band that will handle digital modes such as dPMR, DMR or P25. Shall I be kind and give you 38 days )

[Nunya-Biz]

peteramjet ;

Well Done -
Well Asserted -
Well Delivered -

( and most importantly, Well 'Aimed' - you Guru! )

Your response so far, has been the only one I have seen to date - that has delivered a response worthy of such praise.

- There's nothin' like discussing matters such as these, when they are pressed forward with a deliberate focus placed on nothing but observations and fact. -


For this, you have my ultimate respect.

Nevertheless…

If it's context you want, then it's context you'll get.


Firstly, don't fall fowl and start making the same mistake that Vkfour is already renowned for - and that is, misquoting out of context.

( There's that damn word - 'context' again… )

'Check-yourself-before-you-wreck-yourself', my friend - and hold your horses.

When I first mentioned 'encryption', this was tied directly to my assertions that this was a way for the OP to 'transmit digital, somewhere other than UHF CB - without having to face the mundanity of a VK-Exam.'
( Remember that word 'encryption', as I'm going to ask you a question shortly concerning this - )

I then continued further, by saying that the OP could then happily push ANYTHING across this 'encrypted link', by saying ;

Once you've got your end points established and happily synced, you can push whatever encrypted Full Duplex Data/Comms over the link you wish - Voice, Video, Telemetry, Telecommand, Raw Data, Private LAN, Internet - anything your heart desires…

It wasn't until my VERY NEXT POST, that I then asserted that the entire Thread was actually wrong, as the OP could in fact press Digital Voice across UHF CB, in a fashion - as you put it -

using an ad-hoc work around using external audio to synthesis voice from a digital format to be re-broadcast in analog using standard CB equipment.

This is all tied to that damn second question of the OP's, that you will soon see - is probably the entire reason for this Topic's fragmentation…


With this stated - keep in mind, that I'm going to ask you that pivotal 'encryption' question shortly.


In the meantime, let me otherwise state for the record - that yes - I do agree with you whole-heartedly.

It is a little difficult to conclude with irrefutability, EXACTLY what was meant by the OP on each occasion that he spoke.
Especially when it is acknowledged that he has to date, submitted only two Posts - ( both of which are littered with typo's, spelling and grammatical errors, along with enough ambiguity to have me convinced - that I had enough space in there to make a point to begin with. )

As you have already identified, my whole point of ignition was right there - contained within the OP's second question - of which I felt, could in fact be interpreted - exactly how I chose to interpret it.

( Once again, that damn second question of the OP's - )

And that fateful question was ;

Thanks for that comit, is there any way to transmit digital without a vk anywhere?

Now, the whole reason I interpreted this second question from the OP as I did, ( meaning that there was a possibility that he meant to ask if he could use ANY form of digital emission, ANYWHERE - without having to face the mundanity of a VK-Exam ),

...was because of these very typo's, spelling and grammatical errors, along with all of the ambiguity that was clearly present within his first Post.


I then highlighted this very ambiguity, when I in turn responded to your own first interjection - by accusing the entire Thread so far, of failing to clarify the specific request of the OP - FIRST - before then slamming him down.

As a direct result of this failing, ( by each of the belligerents who had weighed-in so far ), I also immediately rallied HARD straight off the bat, all due to the clearly aggressive and dismissive stances, presented by each of the belligerents in attendance.

( Damn, this is gettin' messy! - But, Please take the time, as I just have, to step through this once again. )

Now you can either choose to take these points of mine into consideration or not - ( as obviously, the choice to do so is plainly yours… )


Immaterial of all of this even - it still can't be ignored - Vkfour really stepped on his own Landmine, ( with that absolute lemon of a Post of his, aimed squarely at me ), found at the bottom of the first Page…

Also, please remember that all of this occurred in my absence - and whether you like it or not - It simply cannot be disputed, Vkfour just 'threw-it-down', he 'threw-it-down HARD', and 'he threw-it-down DUMB'.

So, obviously - I had no choice but to thump him and set him straight…
(c;=


Now, back to that question 'in-waiting'...

If the OP was keen in the first place 'to go Digital' in some fashion on UHF CB, ( immaterial of how ) - my question to you is - WHY?

…it wouldn't be because he may have been looking to have his every word obscured from others, when using UHF CB would he?

- Hence, this is why I lead with some considerations to include 'encryption', as the ultimate reason the OP asked to begin with may well have been to achieve obscurity -

Once again - due to my interpretation of the OP's second question, differing from yours.


This whole drama isn't a 'context issue' - it's nothing other than one of interpretation.


As such,

If you really wish to force this new angle-of-advantage that you now have, ( into something I simply cannot escape from ) - then let's do it together -

Let's really do the very best we can with regards to contacting the OP - and have him impartially clarify exactly what he really meant, concerning each of his two original Posts.

( Perhaps some help from Phil and Michael, as to reaching out to the OP via the eMail Address he used - when first registering here… )

Once this has been made clear - ( and if as a consequence, you're right and I'm wrong ), then make no mistake, I'll show zero hesitation in chomping down my own share of Humble-Pie - because that's precisely WHAT REAL MEN DO.

You can even keep 'your 38 days' concerning this one too if you like - ( Heh-Heh )


As per 'pushing' P25, dPMR - or any other Digital Voice Mode for that matter - across any of the prescribed ISM Bands here in Australia, might I suggest that you take a look closely at the allowances granted under this specific Class Licence.

Because if you do - it'll become real clear to you exactly how you too, can do this as well.

PM me if you still need a hand to work it out -

( And while you're at it my misquoting 'out-of-context' friend, where did I ever state that you could achieve this mean feat 'with off-the-shelf equipment'? )

Do I need to give you in turn, your very own 38 days to recover from this blunder?

…or have you too, simply MISINTERPRETED something yourself as well?

Let me know -

[Nunya-Biz]

While I'm at it -

Vkfour, make no mistake - I'm happy to-cop-it-sweet - if peteramjet wishes to make a meal of it…

…So what's your excuse?

As of today, Champ - You're already down to 37 days -