FCC Report and Order Posted on New Rules

§ 95.417 (CB Rule 17) Do I identify my
CB communications?
(a) You need not identify your CB
communications.
(b) [You are encouraged to identify
your CB communications by any of the
following means:
(1) Previously assigned CB call sign;
(2) K prefix followed by operator initials
and residence zip code;
(3) Name; or
(4) Organizational description including
name and any applicable operator
unit number.]
© [You are encouraged to use your
‘‘handle’’ only in conjuction with the
methods of identification listed in
paragraph (b) of this section.]

 

By the way, there is no excuse for anyone online to have an out-of-date copy of the regulations.

The GPO has an Electronic Code of Federal Regulations online and current.

 

1. I looked up current CB regs online. As I noted, I haven't used one since I retired (other than to listen for band openings that might also be on 10m), so I admit I was off on some things I remember. (After your comment, I do remember when the 60 foot rule was put in. Originally it was 20 feet, period.)

2. As for the comment about "percieved" limitations on who you can talk to, that was "percieved" from the original CB regs, which specified that you communicate only with other units of your own licensed group. That is another area where the regs have changed.

It is fact that CB was never intended for "hobby type" communications, but rather communications to furthur family or business activities. It was not originally designed to be the unlicensed equivalent of ham, the way it is most often used.

It is interesting that we should get into a discussion of CB regs here, since they are irrelevant to hams, and ignored by most CBers. )

 

I'm not talking about rivet counters and you know it. I'm trying to encourage people to fit in, by learning the correct way to go about it. You're not helping new people if you don't help them learn about the activity. And part of learning about it is learning the language. As I said, every activity (and profession, for that matter) has its own jargon. That's just the way it is.

If you start in model railroading and insist on calling diesel engines "electric" engines (which is partly correct) you are not going to make friends, nor will you encourage people to help you.

If you come into ham radio and insist on using jargon from another service, the same thing will happen.

The best way to welcome newcomers is to help them. The best way to have fun in your new avocation is to be open to being helped.

 

I'm not talking about rivet counters and you know it.  I'm trying to encourage people to fit in, by learning the correct way to go about it.  You're not helping new people if you don't help them learn about the activity.  And part of learning about it is learning the language.  As I said, every activity (and profession, for that matter) has its own jargon.  That's just the way it is.

If you start in model railroading and insist on calling diesel engines "electric" engines (which is partly correct) you are not going to make friends, nor will you encourage people to help you.

If you come into ham radio and insist on using jargon from another service, the same thing will happen.[/QUOTE]
....and, just like the rest of the English language, that "jargon" is perpetually changing.  

Actually, I'd like to know which snob among us has now anointed themselves "Chief of Amateur Radio Terms" to decide which terms are (or are not) "correct".  That is, who among us is now responsible for keeping the "official" dictionary of "approved" terms for Amateur Radio use?  

For example, one hardly ever hears the term "Lid" used these days in reference to poor operators on the Amateur bands.  Does that term now need to be stricken from the dictionary?  And even the term "Old Man" seems to be falling by the wayside as of late. We also are substituting the word "Op" for "Name" in a lot of our CW conversations these days.  Does that word now need to be added to the "official" list?

What's more, participants in the two services frequently borrow each other's terms.  "73" originated on the Ham Bands (probably because it has a nice "swing" to it on CW).  But the CB folks have since picked that term up and have now bastardized it into any number of different variations, some of which are now coming back around to be heard on the Ham bands, too.

Seriously, folks, once again, we're making mountains out of molehills.  

I agree that peer pressure and the natural human desire of most individuals for "belongingness" (that is, to "fit in") will create enough of an incentive for newcomers to our Service to use terminology appropriate for where they are operating.

But, "Elmering" those new folks into our Service can also be done in such a way as to not cause embarrassment.  These days, most of us have e-mail addresses, and those addresses can be found in any number of ways, including right here on QRZ.com.  

What's more, the old "praise in public and correct in private" approach applies equally well to Ham Radio.  That is, if we happen to hear someone on the bands doing or saying something inappropriate, we can always send them a private e-mail note and GENTLY suggest ways how they might change their behavior.  

But, attempting such "corrections" over the air will simply perpetuate more bad feelings and "I'm better than you" snobbery.  And we already have quite enough of BOTH of those in our ranks as it is.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

 

You're right, of course, you're not talking about rivet counting.

Only the rivet counters will care. Most of us model railroaders don't care much what you call the motive power so long as you don't call a Berkshire a Shay.

That's right. The ham equivalent of "rivet counters" will get all superior and snub you. The vast majority of the rest of us will cope just fine.

The best way to welcome newcomers is to encourage them. The best way to have fun in a new hobby is to enjoy what you're doing and ignore the rivet counters.

There are two uses for jargon. One is as a shorthand to speed up effective communication. The other is as a way to distinguish the in crowd. Frankly, amateur jargon fits the second model and for the most part we'd be better off without it.

"Elmer" is a lame way of spelling "mentor". It doesn't matter if you call the rig in your closet your "base" or your "fixed". Q codes don't belong in voice communications, anyway, nor do NTS message numbers. "handle" was around as a synonym for name before radio, and it's silly to not use it on the air because "CBers" use it.

The purpose of communiation is mutual understanding and errecting an arbitrary jargon hinders rather than helps that.

 

But that is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to.  You simply used a different example.  What about a newcomer who insisted on calling a 2-4-4-2 steam engine a diesel?  THAT is the equivalent of using CB jargon on ham.  Or the new sailor who told the long-time members of his club that it was a "rope" not a "halyard" that raised the sail?  (Of course what happened there would be a lapse in communications, as "halyard" refers to a specific usage of the "rope", quite different from the sheet, which could also be a rope.)

Most jargon comes about in an attempt to improve communications, by making words more specific to the subject.  And the newcomer should learn the language, because in the process, he learns more about the subject.

 

Funny, Alot of the same comments were made 32 years ago.  

 

That ham rig IS a fixed, not a base. A base radio has to have attendant mobiles that communicate under the same license to be correctly called a base. That is not provided for in Part 97. Many CB radios that are called "base" also are not. (And those are, by the way, not ham specific definitions.)

Q codes are an effective way of precisely conveying a long string of information in a short time, whether on voice or CW. They have their place, especially under difficult conditions.

NTS message numbers have the same advantage, and are used only in a specific environment anyway, so that can't really be called jargon. They aren't used outside of the National Traffic System, and have a major advantage of clarity and brevity within the system.

As for "handle", I agree: that is a ham term meaning "name" (and yes, it predates ham radio) and only someone ignorant of hamdom would criticize anyone for using it on ham radio.

 

Calling a 2-4-4-2 a diesel is not the same as calling the rig on your desk 'fixed' instead of 'base'. The first one betrays a pretty complete lack of understanding of the field, while the second one betrays nothing. But neither would keep me from encouraging the individual to enjoy the hobby.

It's not true that most jargon comes about in an attempt to improve communications. Most jargon comes about as an attempt to differentiate insiders from outsiders.

 

Now that is a fine example of rivet counting. It's also not correct, by the way. 90.7 defines base station as "A station at a specified site authorized to communicate with mobile stations." There is no requirement that the mobiles be under the same license. Neither part 90 nor part 97 defined "fixed" stations.

Amateurs draw the imaginary distinction between 'base' and 'fixed' for the same reason that they use 'Elmer' instead of 'mentor.' It is a classic example of jargon meant to distinguish insider from outsider.

So are 10 codes... Yet emergency responders have decided that the most appropriate way to communicate on voice channels is via plain language.

So you've never seen '73' used outside the NTS?

Many longtime hams critize people for using the term on ham radio. On the air, and on the internet fora.

I doubt very much that you can find any amateur radio jargon that is unique to amateur radio and serves any purpose other than distinguishing ham from non-ham.

 

"73" is a greeting used long before ham radio, and is not an NTS message number as used by all of us. Class it with "handle"; it didn't originate with ham radio.

 

Ignorance does not equate with longevity (or lack thereof). My statement stands.

 

Correct. I had misremembered that it had been adopted as an ARL. '73' is from a list of telegrapher's coded messages that are of similar use to the ARL codes and 10 codes.

It's telegrapher's jargon, and using it outside of telegraphy is exactly as inapprorpiate as using 10 codes on amateur radio.

 

The railroad industry had BOOKS of five letter groups which stood for common railroad phrases.