• To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:

    Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.

    If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.

    To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.

    The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.

    For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).

    This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.

38 MHz CB Radio???

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KN6SD

Guest
I was thinking about areas like Paradise California and how a new local/regional radio service may be a benefit. I know about FRS (short range), GMRS (poor in hilly terrain), and 27 MHz CB Radio (Local comms are Ground Wave, that = short range), none of these services work well in hilly or mountainous terrain.

I came to the conclusion that a new public radio service on the VHF Low Band would serve communities like Paradise much better than the ones listed above. Check out my band plan below...

Any ideas about special features for the radios? Public Safety Alerts? Weather Alerts?

U.S. 38 MHz VHF CB Band Plan
TX/RX Mode of Operation Narrow FM (25 Watts rms)
Channel / Frequency
  1. 38.390 MHz
  2. 38.405 MHz
  3. 38.420 MHz
  4. 38.435 MHz
  5. 38.450 MHz
  6. 38.465 MHz
  7. 38.480 MHz
  8. 38.495 MHz
    8A. 38.510 MHz ALERT Frequency, GOV. Agency transmit ONLY
  9. 38.525 MHz
    9A. 38.540 MHz ALERT Frequency, GOV. Agency transmit ONLY
  10. 38.555 MHz
  11. 38.570 MHz
  12. 38.585 MHz
  13. 38.600 MHz
  14. 38.615 MHz
  15. 38.630 MHz
  16. 38.645 MHz
  17. 38.660 MHz
  18. 38.675 MHz
  19. 38.690 MHz
  20. 38.705 MHz
  21. 38.720 MHz
  22. 38.735 MHz
  23. 38.750 MHz
  24. 38.765 MHz
  25. 38.780 MHz
  26. 38.795 MHz
  27. 38.810 MHz
Channel 09 is reserved for Emergency Communications and Travel Assistance.
 

MisterLongwire

Amateur radio operator/QC tech for radio mfr.
Banned
Joined
Jan 1, 2014
Messages
578
Location
San Marcos,Escondido, CA.
Sounds good. Might want to submit that to the FCC. Won't do ya good posting it here, however to me it looks good. I can work from 1.8 -52 mHz so it doesn't bother me at all
 
K

KN6SD

Guest
Sounds good. Might want to submit that to the FCC. Won't do ya good posting it here, however to me it looks good. I can work from 1.8 -52 mHz so it doesn't bother me at all

To be honest, I was hoping to generate some interest online before approaching the FCC... Thank you for your response.

73,
Russ

Great ideal low band is used very little in NC anymore

Please spread the word/idea to others in the hobby.. I have e-mailed Uniden and President Electronics with the idea, but I have not received a reply from either company...
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
6,868
If you are talking to manufacturers, and FCC, you might raise the prospect of Frequency Hopped Spread Spectrum along with the FM modulation 16K0F3E. In this way the radios can hop virtual channels far in excess of the 27 physical channels you seek. Bendix King made a simple FHSS-FM radio in the 80's that used a synch tone initiating on a random collection channel. It would be cheap and easy to employ this technology. It would not be encryption, but would provide greater spectrum efficiency and anti-jam capabilities which low band might need.
 

prcguy

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
15,339
Location
So Cal - Richardson, TX - Tewksbury, MA
Personally I don't think its a good idea. VHF lo does not do that much better than VHF hi or even UHF in hilly terrain. Its a little better than UHF in dense forest but VHF hi is not that bad either and that's used extensively by the various forest services for mobiles out in the sticks. Look at things like the Baja 1000 race in Mexico where they need comms over a large area with lots of hills. They use 100w VHF radios because that's got about the best range under those conditions.

I live on a large lumpy hill and have tried everything from CB with amplifiers to 6m to 2m to 70cm and GMRS to get around this hill and have not found that one band has a distinct advantage over the others with this terrain and lots of trees. Having a VHF hi or UHF repeater in a good location does get from one side of my hill to the other and many nooks and crannies in between. Plus with VHF lo you would not have any useful hand held performance and efficient antennas at 38MHz are kinda big and so on. And I think 38MHz is mostly reserved for US mil comms within the US.

We already have GMRS that can use repeaters and reasonable power in mobiles and I think 50w is still a valid power level. Why can't places like Paradise, CA have a GMRS repeater on a hilltop that covers a useful area for residents? Or a group can set up a search and rescue type organization and get a part 90 license for VHF lo, which will not buy them much, but its doable. Petitioning for a new class of CB license has a one in a million chance of becoming a reality and I don't think it will benefit anyone except the hobby types that would eventually trash it out.
 
K

KN6SD

Guest
Personally I don't think its a good idea. VHF lo does not do that much better than VHF hi or even UHF in hilly terrain. Its a little better than UHF in dense forest but VHF hi is not that bad either and that's used extensively by the various forest services for mobiles out in the sticks. Look at things like the Baja 1000 race in Mexico where they need comms over a large area with lots of hills. They use 100w VHF radios because that's got about the best range under those conditions.

I live on a large lumpy hill and have tried everything from CB with amplifiers to 6m to 2m to 70cm and GMRS to get around this hill and have not found that one band has a distinct advantage over the others with this terrain and lots of trees. Having a VHF hi or UHF repeater in a good location does get from one side of my hill to the other and many nooks and crannies in between. Plus with VHF lo you would not have any useful hand held performance and efficient antennas at 38MHz are kinda big and so on. And I think 38MHz is mostly reserved for US mil comms within the US.

We already have GMRS that can use repeaters and reasonable power in mobiles and I think 50w is still a valid power level. Why can't places like Paradise, CA have a GMRS repeater on a hilltop that covers a useful area for residents? Or a group can set up a search and rescue type organization and get a part 90 license for VHF lo, which will not buy them much, but its doable. Petitioning for a new class of CB license has a one in a million chance of becoming a reality and I don't think it will benefit anyone except the hobby types that would eventually trash it out.

I respectfully disagree. A GMRS repeater will burn up just like the cell sites did in Paradise and Santa Rosa California. I never said the 38 MHz system will solve every communication problem, but it will provide an individual with more range than 27 MHz CB or the 462 MHz GMRS Band will.

The 38 MHz system also has two special frequencies (channel 8A and 9A) set aside for a Public Safety Agency to broadcast alerts directly to 38 MHz users. A radio could have a Dual-Watch Mode where the user can listen to a desired channel, and monitor the Alert Channels with a Sub-Receiver. Or the user can select Alert Mode Only, in Alert Mode the radio only scans the two Alert Frequencies for special broadcasts from Public Safety Officials. The Alert feature could work something like the Pager Tones fire departments use to activate station receivers.

CB Radio never had an Alert feature like the one I am proposing, such a feature would allow Government Agencies to broadcast directly to 38 MHz users in a specific area. Under my plan, Government agencies would be allowed 100 watts rms to the antenna on channel 8A and 9A.

As far as Spread Spectrum technology is concerned, I would so NO to that, simply because it would increase the cost to the consumer.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
23,867
Location
Roaming the Intermountain West
I'm unclear on the need for this.
I understand your justifications, but I don't see the need to develop a whole new public radio service when we have several ways of achieving your goal.

Requiring everyone to buy a new radio at a few hundred dollars isn't going to happen. To be useful in an emergency, it will need sufficient battery backup. Backing up a 50 watt radio is going to take more than a couple of D cells. It would require suitable size battery, and that requires maintenance.
It'll require an external antenna, which is way beyond what average consumers can install and test properly. Most are not going to want a low band antenna stuck on the side of their home, or on their car. As stated, hand held low band use is dismal due to antenna limitations.
No mention of licensing, or is this a license by rule service?
The FCC doesn't enforce the rules on what we already have, so figure on this becoming a higher power version of the wasteland of CB.

We don't need yet another two way radio service to add to the confusion. We've got consumers that don't understand why a CB on channel 2 cannot talk to an FRS radio on channel 2 and a marine VHF radio on channel 2 and a TV set on channel 2. They're already confused by FRS, GMRS, CB, MURS, 5G, LTE, WiFi, DHS, Ham, EIEIO, etc.

Requiring government agencies to purchase, maintain and periodically test another radio system isn't going to go over well.

We have FM broadcast and TV stations that can already do emergency alerts. There are enough of those that all of them getting wiped out at the same time is unlikely. Add in AM broadcast radio, and you've got more resources than you can shake a stick at. Most people already have TV sets, as well as AM/FM radios in their cars.
Cell phones, while relying on risky infrastructure, have WEA, and public safety agencies have embraced that.
Add NOAA weather radio that already has coverage in most areas and has a functional alerting system built in.

Rather than building a new infrastructure that relies on people buying radios that they'll never understand, never install correctly and never maintain, we'd be better off working with what we already have.

If we need a way to get the attention of people, bring back air raid sirens. Teach people to turn on their radio when they hear it.

I get it, we're radio people and we're supposed to embrace this.
Most of these areas, and Paradise in particular, already have people that have come up with various ways of using existing FRS, GMRS, MURS and amateur radios to accomplish this. It's cheaper, it's easier, but they don't catch on because it's too complex for the average person and requires buying radios, learning how to properly use them, and keeping them charged and ready to go.

I don't think we need to invent a new radio service. We need to utilize the tools we already have. Paradise was a freak incident, and I don't think faster alerting would have changed the outcome very much. Clogged roads, downed trees and power lines, and sheer confusion would happen with this or not.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
23,867
Location
Roaming the Intermountain West
Maybe a better solution would be to petition FCC for FM mode for 27 MHz CB

Yep, bring us in line with a lot of the rest of the world. CTCSS/DCS alone would make it worth it.

But again, it requires people buying new radios, big antennas that most of them don't want.

These sorts of systems are only good if they are cheap, easy and widely adopted.
 
K

KN6SD

Guest
I'm unclear on the need for this.
I understand your justifications, but I don't see the need to develop a whole new public radio service when we have several ways of achieving your goal.

Requiring everyone to buy a new radio at a few hundred dollars isn't going to happen. To be useful in an emergency, it will need sufficient battery backup. Backing up a 50 watt radio is going to take more than a couple of D cells. It would require suitable size battery, and that requires maintenance.
It'll require an external antenna, which is way beyond what average consumers can install and test properly. Most are not going to want a low band antenna stuck on the side of their home, or on their car. As stated, hand held low band use is dismal due to antenna limitations.
No mention of licensing, or is this a license by rule service?
The FCC doesn't enforce the rules on what we already have, so figure on this becoming a higher power version of the wasteland of CB.

We don't need yet another two way radio service to add to the confusion. We've got consumers that don't understand why a CB on channel 2 cannot talk to an FRS radio on channel 2 and a marine VHF radio on channel 2 and a TV set on channel 2. They're already confused by FRS, GMRS, CB, MURS, 5G, LTE, WiFi, DHS, Ham, EIEIO, etc.

Requiring government agencies to purchase, maintain and periodically test another radio system isn't going to go over well.

We have FM broadcast and TV stations that can already do emergency alerts. There are enough of those that all of them getting wiped out at the same time is unlikely. Add in AM broadcast radio, and you've got more resources than you can shake a stick at. Most people already have TV sets, as well as AM/FM radios in their cars.
Cell phones, while relying on risky infrastructure, have WEA, and public safety agencies have embraced that.
Add NOAA weather radio that already has coverage in most areas and has a functional alerting system built in.

Rather than building a new infrastructure that relies on people buying radios that they'll never understand, never install correctly and never maintain, we'd be better off working with what we already have.

If we need a way to get the attention of people, bring back air raid sirens. Teach people to turn on their radio when they hear it.

I get it, we're radio people and we're supposed to embrace this.
Most of these areas, and Paradise in particular, already have people that have come up with various ways of using existing FRS, GMRS, MURS and amateur radios to accomplish this. It's cheaper, it's easier, but they don't catch on because it's too complex for the average person and requires buying radios, learning how to properly use them, and keeping them charged and ready to go.

I don't think we need to invent a new radio service. We need to utilize the tools we already have. Paradise was a freak incident, and I don't think faster alerting would have changed the outcome very much. Clogged roads, downed trees and power lines, and sheer confusion would happen with this or not.

Why do you want to continue to rely on 27 MHz CB and GMRS???

27 MHz is (legal radios) poor for local communications beyond 3 to 5 miles and GMRS without a repeater is worse.. The new 38 MHz service will be less dependent on repeaters and have greater range than 27 MHz.

I admit, in large Metro areas the new service is unnecessary, but in rural America I believe it would prove to be very useful to the average citizen.
 

prcguy

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
15,339
Location
So Cal - Richardson, TX - Tewksbury, MA
I disagree with this one. I've been using CB since the late 60s and GMRS from about 1978 and a 40-50 watt GMRS mobile to another 40-50 watt mobile with 3ft long "5dB gain" antennas usually has much more distance than stock CBs with good antennas. Same with simplex base stations, a pair of 50 watt GMRS base radios with 6dBd antennas (fairly small) will almost always have better range than stock CB base stations with 1/2 wave or 5/8 wave antennas, which are not small.

If you throw 100+ watt amplifiers on the CBs, then things turn around, but we are not supposed to do that.



Why do you want to continue to rely on 27 MHz CB and GMRS???

27 MHz is (legal radios) poor for local communications beyond 3 to 5 miles and GMRS without a repeater is worse.. The new 38 MHz service will be less dependent on repeaters and have greater range than 27 MHz.

I admit, in large Metro areas the new service is unnecessary, but in rural America I believe it would prove to be very useful to the average citizen.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
23,867
Location
Roaming the Intermountain West
Why do you want to continue to rely on 27 MHz CB and GMRS???

Because they already exist, they can work, and it doesn't rely on any large changes by the FCC.
Big issues I see:
1. FCC would need to create a new radio service.
2. Manufacturers would need to develop a new product line.
3. It would require wholesale adoption of this by the public in large enough numbers to be effective.

27 MHz is (legal radios) poor for local communications beyond 3 to 5 miles and GMRS without a repeater is worse.. The new 38 MHz service will be less dependent on repeaters and have greater range than 27 MHz.

CB can be easily fixed if the FCC was to decide to do it. Allowing FM operation would put us in line with a lot of other countries that already allow FM on the CB frequencies. Getting existing radios type accepted would be easier than developing a new radio service and waiting for manufactures to make suitable equipment.
If the FCC was to really buy into this, they could easily allow FM at higher power for government users.

Low band can still suffer from skip like CB does, so while going up in frequency might lessen that a bit, it's still going to be an issue.

I admit, in large Metro areas the new service is unnecessary, but in rural America I believe it would prove to be very useful to the average citizen.

Average citizen isn't going to want to buy a new radio, or put up an efficient antenna, or do a proper installation.

GMRS can work well in these environments if we get away from the cute little radios. Using an existing UHF radio product with an efficient antenna will improve coverage quite a bit. I use commercial UHF equipment in some very remote/hilly areas and it works as well as anything else if it's designed correctly. That means proper repeater antenna choices, quality UHF portables, and proper installations.

38MHz isn't going to magically fix anything. The issues that keep GMRS, MURS and CB from being effective will carry over to the 38MHz band because of the consumer, not because of the technology.

I can appreciate your enthusiasm, and I can appreciate the idea of building a new dedicated radio service, but I think it's a non-started since it would require a large investment from individual consumers, and that will kill it.

A more workable approach is to use what many people already have, cell phones, FRS radios, AM/FM/TV, NOAA weather radio, etc.
 

dlwtrunked

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
2,128
I was thinking about areas like Paradise California and how a new local/regional radio service may be a benefit. I know about FRS (short range), GMRS (poor in hilly terrain), and 27 MHz CB Radio (Local comms are Ground Wave, that = short range), none of these services work well in hilly or mountainous terrain.

I came to the conclusion that a new public radio service on the VHF Low Band would serve communities like Paradise much better than the ones listed above. Check out my band plan below...

Any ideas about special features for the radios? Public Safety Alerts? Weather Alerts?

U.S. 38 MHz VHF CB Band Plan
TX/RX Mode of Operation Narrow FM (25 Watts rms)
Channel / FrequencyChannel 09 is reserved for Emergency Communications and Travel Assistance.

Absolutely no chance.
1. The band is actively used by US military convoys and test ranges.
2. There is really no relevant significant propagation difference most of the time between 27 and 38 MHz. It is not going to conquer mountains or hills.
(27 MHz is not ground wave any more than 38 MHz is.) Any benefit you see for that band over others in your case is an error.
3. What you have proposed is really another CB band. With 27 MHz enough of a problem and not that much used in may areas, that alone is a reason to reject.
4. Weather alerts already occur on 162 MHz and the FCC is not going to weaken that designated NOAA use.
5. Public safety alerts? Not sure what you have in mind. Much is on NOAA and USCG frequencies--you are not going to replace those. Travelers aid below and above AM radio takes care of road alerts. If you meant PD when you said public safely alerts, they have gone out of their way to encrypt and do not want attention and would not bother to do it.

I would not spend much time making such a proposal.
 

a417

Active Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2004
Messages
4,669
I forsee this thread getting very out of control very quickly.
 
K

KN6SD

Guest
I forsee this thread getting very out of control very quickly.

Yep, I've noticed change seems to scare the hell out of everyone.... Floated this idea on the QRZ forum, and got the same response.. Lots of smart people screaming like Sheldon Cooper :)
 

prcguy

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
15,339
Location
So Cal - Richardson, TX - Tewksbury, MA
Its got nothing to do with change and everything to do with an idea that would not go anywhere. I'll echo the appreciation for the idea and research, but many of us have seen similar and perhaps better proposals go nowhere. Look at the 220MHz CB band proposal in the early 70s. That got squashed pretty bad and there have been others.

Yep, I've noticed change seems to scare the hell out of everyone.... Floated this idea on the QRZ forum, and got the same response.. Lots of smart people screaming like Sheldon Cooper :)
 
K

KN6SD

Guest
Its got nothing to do with change and everything to do with an idea that would not go anywhere. I'll echo the appreciation for the idea and research, but many of us have seen similar and perhaps better proposals go nowhere. Look at the 220MHz CB band proposal in the early 70s. That got squashed pretty bad and there have been others.

I have an idea that would expand MURS by 10 channels... I posted it on the FRS/GMRS section...

Let me know what you think...

73,
Russ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top