Citizens Band Radio (Hansard, 15 May 1981)

§ Mr. Raison

The factors leading to our choice of frequencies for the 27 MHz citizens band service, which took account of the situation in other European countries, are set out in my letter to my hon. Friend. We have regular liaison about all radio regulatory matters, including citizens band radio, with other countries in Europe; and progress is being made through the medium of the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunication Administrations(CEPT) towards standardisation on frequencies for citizens band radio in the 900 MHz band.

The letter to my hon. Friend is as follows: When we met last week to discuss the Government's decision concerning the appropriate sub-bands for the new CB service at 27MHz FM I promised, in the light of the criticisms which this decision has attracted in some quarters, to write to you as leader of the All Party Group explaining the factors that shaped our final view. I should emphasise that by no means all the comments which we have received have been hostile but I know that you are concerned that the Home Office might be thought to have failed to take account of the interests of CB users who are anxious to take their equipment abroad, and I am glad to have the opportunity to put matters in perspective. Some years ago the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) made a recommendation on standards for 27 MHz CB equipment. This applies to both AM and FM modulation systems. Some countries permit both, while France, Holland and Germany in particular allow only FM. The recommendation provides for 22 channels and a transmitter output of half a watt, as opposed to the 40 channels and 4 watt transmitter output of most of the illicit AM equipment in use in this country. But this recommendation is not binding on European Administrations, nor is there any obligation to conform to it arising out of our membership of the EEC. Most European countries which favour CB keep to the CEPT recommendation for 22 channels, but there are national variations which go beyond the half a watt transmitter power recommended by CEPT; in all cases, however, these are below the power available from American AM equipment. As a consequence of all this, much of the equipment used in Europe is confined solely to its own country and may not be taken into neighbouring countries. Equipment which meets the French specification, for example, where the permitted power is higher than anything so far allowed elsewhere in Europe, can be used only in France. The widespread idea that there is in practice a common standard in Europe is thus quite false. 368W Against this background, you will recall that I pointed out in the Adjournment Debate on 9th February that none of the illicit AM equipment of American origin used in this country was allowed anywhere in Europe. European countries which pennit CB do not prohibit FM, but the same is not always true of AM; so that any possibility that might open up of achieving commonality within Europe would be likely to rest upon the use of an FM system. This accords with our scientific findings that in this particular band, and given the pattern of use in this country, the performance of FM would be as good as that of AM while avoiding to a very large extent the serious interference problems of the latter. It would, of course, have been possible to legalise a CB system which enabled CB users to take their equipment abroad had they been prepared to conform, in all respects,with the CEPT recommended specifications, and in particular, with the limits of only 22 channels and a maximum of half a watt transmitter power. Such a restriction on power would, however, materially reduce the performance of the equipment, and the CB lobby has made it quite clear to us that they would regard such a reduction as totally unacceptable. I need scarcely say that if the performance of the new service does not command public support, it would not meet our aim of providing a comparable alternative to the illicit AM equipment which is doing so much harm at present, and we therefore set out to provide the performance that is being demanded. We have thus allocated 40 channels and a transmitter output of 4 watts (precisely the same as the American AM system). In these circumstances, the frequency band allocated becomes irrelevant as far as Europe is concerned. CB enthusiasts cannot demand twice the number of European channels and eight times the recommended power and still expect Europe to welcome them, whether some of their channels coincide with European ones or not. We therefore selected a sub-band which caused the minimum inconvenience to other users of radio in the United Kingdom. The CEPT band, for example, is already heavily used in this country by, among others, the paging services and model control enthusiasts. I would have considered locating our new CE; service there had this meant commonality with Europe; but since the performance requirements of CB enthusiasts had completely ruled that out, we should have been totally unjustified in putting existing authorised users—whose numbers run well into six figures—to expense and inconvenience for no purpose. It is, of course, a matter for much regret that a degree of commonality with Europe cannot at present be achieved. if, however, there is a general move in Europe towards adoption for CB of higher power levels and more channels, we shall certainly be most anxious to explore the possibility of harmonisation with our European partners. Indeed, now that we have established a firm framework and produced a United Kingdom specification for more highly powered CB equipment, we should be well placed to play an active part in any future moves towards standardisation of such equipment. I should stress, however, that standardisation of CB within Europe is likely to require the most precise alignment, not only in relation to equipment specification and frequencies, but also in relation to such matters as testing and type approval of equipment. I hope that in the light of this explanation it will be recognised that we have had very much in mind the interests of those who will use legalised CB. We have had some detailed comments from the Citizens Band Association on our specifications for the legalised CB equipment, which will shortly be published, and we 369W shall be responding to these as soon as possible. In the meantime, I know that you will be particularly pleased to learn that we have already issued the first testing and development licences to British companies, some at least of whom have declared firmly their intention to manufacture CB equipment in this country. I am making arrangements to release the text of this letter to the press. I am writing to you separately on the rather technical question which you raised at our meeting concerning the restrictions which will be placed on the height of the aerials to be used for CB.