CB’rs on 28.000Mhz plus? What can be done about this?

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by WB4JHS, Oct 9, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-Geochron
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-3
ad: HRDLLC-2
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
  1. N3HGB

    N3HGB Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well I'll make an effort to go thru 10 every time I am on the boat, but I swear it has been dead as Monty Python's parrot for years. I almost always give a CQ on 28.400 to no results. You know how to keep freebanders off 10? The real way?
    USE IT.
    They'll stick to <28 Mhz where it is quiet then, at which point it will not be a ham problem.
  2. ND6M

    ND6M Ham Member QRZ Page

    Much of the problem is that they tend to illegally operate PHONE in the CW/RTTY/DATA/ BEACON sub bands.

    trying to"talk" to/"over" them using CW/RTTY, ect. would not be productive, it would also be a Part 97 violation.
  3. K9STH

    K9STH Ham Member QRZ Page


    Not a violation to "talk over" illegal operation until Riley Hollingsworth's public statement is rescinded, officially, by the FCC.

    However, as I keep pointing out, make sure that the offending signal is NOT legal amateur radio operation by operators in areas not administered by the FCC.

    Glen, K9STH
    K3XR likes this.
  4. W9RAC

    W9RAC Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    "Since I guess we can agree that although "kneecapping" may be a effective deterrent it is likely illegal. Also I suspect the IQ of "freebanders" may make a effort to reason with them a disappointment. So that leaves those who care in the Amateur community to make a effort to convince the only authority available, the FCC. By way of ARRL or direct complaints are our only option to make it known that we desire some sort of policing. Otherwise the choice is.... well do nothing but complain or say that we can not do anything, not even make a effort."
    The FCC is the only option. A effort to reason with or educate them will likely be a big disappointment. In reality only Amateur traffic will deter them making it a less than hospitable place to talk so its probably not ending anytime soon and likely to get worse. Under 28.000, not our problem as you have mentioned. I do believe having a discussion about the awareness of it may be of benefit vs just ignoring it..... catch you on 10 meters, 73 Rich
  5. WR2E

    WR2E Ham Member QRZ Page

    ...nothing but hearsay.

    Published, written rules rule.
  6. K9STH

    K9STH Ham Member QRZ Page


    Not "hearsay"! The statement was well documented and witnessed by hundreds.

    Definition of hearsay:

    1. information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
    If the statement had been made in private, to a couple of people, then it would probably fit the definition of "hearsay". However, the statement was made in public, at a meeting, where several hundred persons were present.

    Glen, K9STH
    K3XR likes this.
  7. WR2E

    WR2E Ham Member QRZ Page


    There is more than one definition. But even your definition applies.

    How would one 'substantiate' that he said it? Take the word of someone who claimed to have heard it?

    RUMOR and internet lore is all your belief boils down to.

    Were YOU THERE? Did you hear Riley say whatever it is you think he said, with your OWN EARS?

    Even if you WERE there, if you were to tell me that he said what he said, well... that would be HEARSAY!

    Riley can not utter words and they be the rules.

    Rules are WRITTEN and PUBLISHED.

    Were Riley's words transcribed and published? If so, where?

    Hearsay, I say!
  8. K9STH

    K9STH Ham Member QRZ Page

    His statement was reported in several amateur radio magazines at the time. I would consider that to meet your requirement of transcription and publication.

    I have been thinning out my "hard copy" collection of magazines keeping only those with construction articles of interest to me. I do have scanned copies of several magazines on my computer. However, those are, generally, from no later than around 2000. Therefore, I cannot tell you the issue, and the page number, where his comments were reported. I would suspect that there are a few, who post here on QRZ.com, who can supply that information.

    Glen, K9STH
    K3XR likes this.
  9. KN6SD

    KN6SD Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Why the Part 97 violation??? Treat them (bootleggers) like Power Line noise or any other unlicensed QRM on the band...
    K3XR likes this.
  10. N3HGB

    N3HGB Ham Member QRZ Page

    If you talk on 28.100 Mhz, YOU are in violation. CW/DATA away though ;)

Share This Page