Page 1 of 1
Is it time to do away with the emergency channel 9?
Posted: December 2nd, 2020, 9:39 am
by TNT1450
I've been thinking that it's probably time the FCC do away with the "emergency only" status for channel 9. Currently the rules state that channel 9 is to be used for traveler assistance or emergency use only. However, in my area at least, CB is pretty much dead and if you call for help on channel 9 (or likely any other channel for that matter) you're going to be waiting a long time. If I wanted to chat with someone on channel 9 all day long, not only would nobody mind but nobody would even be listening in the first place. An emergency channel made sense back in the 70's when CB was the primary means of mobile communication, but now that just about everyone in the entire country has a cell phone which can immediately get you into contact with emergency services, it's unlikely anyone will be using channel 9 to contact someone with a telephone link to 911. Back when REACT and other groups were constantly monitoring channel 9 this rule made sense, but it's pretty outdated now. I guarantee if I am in an emergency or witness one I'm going to go directly to my phone and not fumble around with channel 9 when I know nobody's listening, even if I had a CB in my truck. Nor would I bother trying to raise another ham on one of the 2m repeaters, unless for some reason my phone was dead and the old cell phone I keep in my glove box for emergencies was also dead.
I say that the FCC should remove the emergency only restriction for channel 9 and open it up to regular use just like the rest of the channels. Should there be anyone calling for help on channel 9 (or any other channel), I'm sure that other users would suspend their transmissions and offer assistance. It's still a rule to give priority to emergency traffic, so that makes the channel 9 emergency rule redundant.
What do you think? Does channel 9 still warrant "emergency channel" status or is it a relic from the past?
Is it time to do away with the emergency channel 9?
Posted: December 9th, 2020, 6:42 pm
by De_Wildfire
I think channel nine should should still be an emergency channel because if we lose cell phone, landline and internet during a emergency or if the government uses a kill switch to stop people from talking from city to city due to political unrest situation, we would be thrown back into the 70's again. I am sure amateur radio operators will be monitoring channel 9 and relaying emergency messages into other service frequencies to loved ones across the country. People take their internet, cell phones and landlines for granted and channel nine may come back to life when the SHTF.
Is it time to do away with the emergency channel 9?
Posted: December 10th, 2020, 6:53 am
by TNT1450
De_Wildfire wrote: December 9th, 2020, 6:42 pm
I am sure amateur radio operators will be monitoring channel 9 and relaying emergency messages into other service frequencies to loved ones across the country.
I totally disagree. Most hams don't care about CB. Some still use it, but for the most part hams tend to still regard CB as a lawless band and don't pay much attention to it.
Of course if SHTF then pretty much anything goes, but I'm not really talking about if the government would happen to somehow shut down the entire internet and cell phone service, even if they could. Sure, if the government were to do something like that, then all rules go out the window anyway. But I'm talking about everyday legal CB usage. My point is that if someone has an emergency, they're likely to call for help on the channel they were already using, especially if they know there are people on their local channel listening. And that's assuming they have no cell service or a dead phone. There just aren't a bunch of people out there monitoring channel 9 any more, so you're more likely to get help from a cell phone or any other channel where you know some locals hang out. And it's fairly easy to temporarily declare any channel an emergency channel if someone's using it in an emergency, since there's another rule which states that users must yield to emergency traffic on a channel. So having one channel set aside as an emergency channel doesn't really make much sense any more.
I do think that after a SHTF scenario there's not likely to be an FCC around to regulate radio any more, so anyone using a CB will probably self-regulate and use channel 9 as an emergency channel on their own, out of tradition and necessity.
Is it time to do away with the emergency channel 9?
Posted: December 12th, 2020, 12:58 pm
by MDYoungblood
I am with De_Wildfire on this as well, if and when the "SHTF" , citizen band radios will be much easier to find than ham or GMRS radios. Now if you remember back to Katina (2005) most of the repeater in the New Orleans area were wiped out, only HF was being used to coordinate and a lot of CB activity coming in from down there.
3's
Greg
Is it time to do away with the emergency channel 9?
Posted: December 14th, 2020, 8:37 pm
by Bozo
MDYoungblood wrote: December 12th, 2020, 12:58 pm
I am with De_Wildfire on this as well, if and when the "SHTF" , citizen band radios will be much easier to find than ham or GMRS radios. Now if you remember back to Katina (2005) most of the repeater in the New Orleans area were wiped out, only HF was being used to coordinate and a lot of CB activity coming in from down there
I agree. Even though most people don't use it. It is a good idea to have it just incase