38 MHz CB Radio???

[a417]

My comment had nothing to do with being afraid of change. Maybe the consensus of replies means something?

 

[prcguy]

I play with the current MURS on occasion and find very few people have embraced it, and this is in the Los Angeles area which is ripe with radio people. I think its mostly because of the small and poor selection of legal radios available but MURS is there and waiting and it doesn't get used much.

If mfrs are not making radios that also means their is not a lot of requests for newer radios. Things like this will come up anytime a new CB type service is proposed, the existing services are under utilized, so why add more?

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

 

[ab3a]

I have experience of over 30 years working at a utility that has used low band vhf on 42, 44, and 48 MHz. We used 100 watts at the mobile unit and 300 watts at the base unit. We had satellite receivers all over our service area. In truth, low band VHF doesn't work in valleys as well as you might think. So I'm not sure I understand why you think this could be an improvement.

Given that experience, why not request a LOWER frequency such as 50 meters and use NVIS propagation with single sideband? You could channelize things with 5 kHz channels, Use inverted V antennas for the base station, and use 25 watts mobile.

 

[KN6SD]

I play with the current MURS on occasion and find very few people have embraced it, and this is in the Los Angeles area which is ripe with radio people. I think its mostly because of the small and poor selection of legal radios available but MURS is there and waiting and it doesn't get used much.

If mfrs are not making radios that also means their is not a lot of requests for newer radios. Things like this will come up anytime a new CB type service is proposed, the existing services are under utilized, so why add more?

I have heard MURS is used some by truckers, but not many others use it...

I thought a 15 channel unit (if FCC approved) may attract more users???

I have experience of over 30 years working at a utility that has used low band vhf on 42, 44, and 48 MHz. We used 100 watts at the mobile unit and 300 watts at the base unit. We had satellite receivers all over our service area. In truth, low band VHF doesn't work in valleys as well as you might think. So I'm not sure I understand why you think this could be an improvement.

Given that experience, why not request a LOWER frequency such as 50 meters and use NVIS propagation with single sideband? You could channelize things with 5 kHz channels, Use inverted V antennas for the base station, and use 25 watts mobile.

Range is not my only concern, but audio quality to the average non-radio type... Ya have to admit 11 meters is NOISY...

My comment had nothing to do with being afraid of change. Maybe the consensus of replies means something?

That comment was directed towards a crowd of goof balls..... Only a few folks had any constructive comments (other forum), the rest where designed to annoy...

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.

Ah, you do know the 220 MHz band is a Ham band??? In the late 80's we lost 220 MHz to 222 MHz to commercial interests

 

[prcguy]

Yes, I know all about UPS petitioning for 220MHz then the FCC cleared out some hamsters then UPS never got it and eventually it went to other users. I've been using 220 amateur for quite some time.

Ah, you do know the 220 MHz band is a Ham band??? In the late 80's we lost 220 MHz to 222 MHz to commercial interests

 

[ab3a]

Range is not my only concern, but audio quality to the average non-radio type... Ya have to admit 11 meters is NOISY...

Okay, then instead of using Single Side Band, use a digital modulation of some sort. The reason I suggested SSB is because if ground wave and sky wave meet there can be selective fading. This is hell on most modulations such as AM and FM. But SSB voice won't be noticeably affected.

Still you're right, the primary issue with any HF communications is noise. If you're near any power or copper phone line infrastructure of any sort, it will be a problem. However, that issue will also present itself on low band VHF too. Yes, over unobstructed land with a decent tower at one end, one can communicate over distances exceeding 100 miles. That's why the utility still uses low band VHF. When disaster strikes, they do not want to be dependent on any other infrastructure more than absolutely necessary. After all, they ARE the infrastructure.

I suggest that if you want to communicate over a wide range reliably, that you use a satellite phone. They're not cheap, but when you need something that just plain works over long distances or mountainous terrain, that's your best bet.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Some observations:

27 MHz CB's with AM/FM mode are plentiful in EU and made by same manufacturers selling AM only models in US. The extra cost of manufacture would be nil. They would become more widely accepted once folks replace older radios. There is high demand for AM/SSB radios even at a premium. FM capture and CTCSS and DCS features would make these new radios desirable.

FM de-modulator will cancel out the constant channel noise currently heard on AM radios. The squelch circuits will be more effective.

Future 27 MHz radios should offer FHSS-FM mode-modulation it is cheap, will provide hundreds of virtual channels. It will also provide anti-jam capability so that carriers or noise that are on a physical channel 1-40 will be ignored.

GMRS 50 watt radios do have a performance advantage over CB when used with gain antennas.

Sadly the only current GMRS mobile models are being made by Midland who has chosen a low parts count FRS narrowband chipset which erodes about 3dB in performance Midland to Midland and 6 dB reduction Midland to WB repeater or other WB mobile. So Midland Sucks.. B-Tech makes a promising 50 watt WB mobile. Reports from field one already caught fire on a dashboard. So much for low parts count CCR's.

Better to buy those proven older surplus LMR for same price plus a bit for software.

GMRS needs to get a kick start on adoption. More licensees demonstrates that it is a viable HIGH PERFORMANCE personal radio service. Manufacturers need to be pressured to provide good quality type accepted mobiles and repeaters that MEET GMRS specs. Specificallly the 16K0F3E modulation damnit!

GMRS sits inside prime UHF real estate. We should not be complacent and think that the manufacturers won't come up with a better idea for this chunk of spectrum. The FCC has already given away the band edge protection to Part 90. If you are a repeater owner using the lower or upper band channels 1 or 8, watch out for "adjacent channel" interference.

I'm a little verklempt.- Talk amongst yourselves

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Okay, then instead of using Single Side Band, use a digital modulation of some sort. The reason I suggested SSB is because if ground wave and sky wave meet there can be selective fading. This is hell on most modulations such as AM and FM. But SSB voice won't be noticeably affected.

Still you're right, the primary issue with any HF communications is noise. If you're near any power or copper phone line infrastructure of any sort, it will be a problem. However, that issue will also present itself on low band VHF too. Yes, over unobstructed land with a decent tower at one end, one can communicate over distances exceeding 100 miles. That's why the utility still uses low band VHF. When disaster strikes, they do not want to be dependent on any other infrastructure more than absolutely necessary. After all, they ARE the infrastructure.

I suggest that if you want to communicate over a wide range reliably, that you use a satellite phone. They're not cheap, but when you need something that just plain works over long distances or mountainous terrain, that's your best bet.

Using a digital modulation at HF is going to require a sub rate vocoder. These sound awful. even full rate AMBE sounds awful. IMBE sounds awful.

I did some audio testing with some Astro Sabers in IMBE P25 vs Analog Systems Sabers in FM and Securenet CVSD. The FM sounded better than IMBE and even the much disparaged Securenet CVSD (in properly tuned radios) sounded almost as good as FM. So what happened? The digital technology caught up enough to make up for lost signal to noise for going FM WB 16K0F3E to FM NB 11K0F3E, but audio intelligibility suffers. So much that the powers to be had to put together extensive audio quality metrics and diagnostic rhyme tests to "prove" intelligibility.

 

[KN6SD]

Using a digital modulation at HF is going to require a sub rate vocoder. These sound awful. even full rate AMBE sounds awful. IMBE sounds awful.

I did some audio testing with some Astro Sabers in IMBE P25 vs Analog Systems Sabers in FM and Securenet CVSD. The FM sounded better than IMBE and even the much disparaged Securenet CVSD (in properly tuned radios) sounded almost as good as FM. So what happened? The digital technology caught up enough to make up for lost signal to noise for going FM WB 16K0F3E to FM NB 11K0F3E, but audio intelligibility suffers. So much that the powers to be had to put together extensive audio quality metrics and diagnostic rhyme tests to "prove" intelligibility.

My biggest reason for wanting to dump HF for the average consumer radio is the SKIP problem. When conditions are great for DX it kills local comms on 27 MHz.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

My biggest reason for wanting to dump HF for the average consumer radio is the SKIP problem. When conditions are great for DX it kills local comms on 27 MHz.

We are in a low sunspot cycle. It will be years before it is at a peak. FM capture will help, though admittedly a signal coming in tropo or e-skip may overpower and capture a local. You are going to have that at 38 MHz if it is adopted widely as a service. Thus my suggestion for FHSS-FM. the numbers of virtual channels can be much greater than the 27 physical channels you marked at 38 MHz. At 40 channels in 27 MHz even more virtual channels.

 

[nd5y]

My biggest reason for wanting to dump HF for the average consumer radio is the SKIP problem. When conditions are great for DX it kills local comms on 27 MHz.

38 and 49 MHz won't be much different than 27 MHz. Maybe slightly fewer openings but skip will still be a problem.

 

[KN6SD]

38 and 49 MHz won't be much different than 27 MHz. Maybe slightly fewer openings but skip will still be a problem.

When openings occur they're not as strong or as consistent throughout the day like HF... I know it won't be perfect, but more manageable...

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.

I admit I didn't think the Military was using 38 MHz much, but I have had several people correct me

Here's my 38 MHz fix...

U.S. 49 MHz VHF-Lo MURS Band Plan
TX/RX Mode of Operation FM (4 Watts rms)

Channel / Frequency / Bandwidth / Recommended Use
1A. 49.6750 (20.00 kHz) Interstate Highway Channel – Long Range
2A. 49.6950 (20.00 kHz) Off Road Vehicle (4WD) channel --- Long Range
3A. 49.7150 (20.00 kHz) Long Range Talk Around Channel
4A. 49.7350 (20.00 kHz) Long Range Talk Around Channel
5A. 49.7550 (20.00 kHz) Long Range Talk Around Channel
6A. 49.7750 (20.00 kHz) Long Range Talk Around Channel
7A. 49.7950 (20.00 kHz) Long Range Talk Around Channel
8A. 49.8150 (20.00 kHz) Long Range Talk Around Channel
9A. 49.8400 (20.00 kHz) Emergency / Travel Assistance ONLY
10A. 49.8650 (20.00 kHz) Long Range Talk Around Channel
11A. 49.8950 (20.00 kHz) Long Range Talk Around Channel
12A. 49.9150 (20.00 kHz) Long Range Talk Around Channel
13A. 49.9350 (20.00 kHz) Long Range Talk Around Channel
14A. 49.9550 (20.00 kHz) Long Range Talk Around Channel
15A. 49.9750 (20.00 kHz) Long Range Talk Around Channel


U.S. 150 MHz VHF-Hi MURS Band Plan
TX/RX Mode of Operation FM (2 Watts rms)

Channel / Frequency / Bandwidth / Recommended Use
1B. 151.820 MHz (11.25 kHz) Short Range Talk Around Channel
2B. 151.880 MHz (11.25 kHz) Short Range Talk Around Channel
3B. 151.940 MHz (11.25 kHz) Truck / Cargo Terminals --- Calling Channel
4B. 154.570 MHz (20.00 kHz) Off Road Vehicle (4WD) channel --- Short Range
5B. 154.600 MHz (20.00 kHz) Interstate Highway Channel – Short Range

 

[mmckenna]

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

It's not fear, and it's not fear of change.

Realize that the comments you've received come from a group of people with the equivalent of probably two hundred years (or more) of experience doing this sort of stuff.

These sorts of emergency communications proposals come along frequently, and they all tend to fall flat pretty quickly. Reason they don't work is that they rely on products that do not exist yet, consumers being required to stand watch on a specific channel, and/or a large number of consumers adopting a new radio service. Manufacturers are not going to start producing a 38MHz CB radio when the existing CB's, quality GMRS gear and MURS gear isn't selling. Clouding the market with another low end consumer radio isn't going to help.

Truth is, public safety already has ways to accomplish emergency alerting using proven technology that consumers already have. No one who's commented really see's the need to adopt yet another slice of spectrum for consumer use, least of all low band. The issue in Paradise was not lack of technology.

 

[KN6SD]

It's not fear, and it's not fear of change.

Realize that the comments you've received come from a group of people with the equivalent of probably two hundred years (or more) of experience doing this sort of stuff.

These sorts of emergency communications proposals come along frequently, and they all tend to fall flat pretty quickly. Reason they don't work is that they rely on products that do not exist yet, consumers being required to stand watch on a specific channel, and/or a large number of consumers adopting a new radio service. Manufacturers are not going to start producing a 38MHz CB radio when the existing CB's, quality GMRS gear and MURS gear isn't selling. Clouding the market with another low end consumer radio isn't going to help.

Truth is, public safety already has ways to accomplish emergency alerting using proven technology that consumers already have. No one who's commented really see's the need to adopt yet another slice of spectrum for consumer use, least of all low band. The issue in Paradise was not lack of technology.

Please don't take this wrong, but are you the same group of people that will blow a 100 million dollars on a communications system when the existing system works...

It's not fear, and it's not fear of change.

Realize that the comments you've received come from a group of people with the equivalent of probably two hundred years (or more) of experience doing this sort of stuff.

These sorts of emergency communications proposals come along frequently, and they all tend to fall flat pretty quickly. Reason they don't work is that they rely on products that do not exist yet, consumers being required to stand watch on a specific channel, and/or a large number of consumers adopting a new radio service. Manufacturers are not going to start producing a 38MHz CB radio when the existing CB's, quality GMRS gear and MURS gear isn't selling. Clouding the market with another low end consumer radio isn't going to help.

Truth is, public safety already has ways to accomplish emergency alerting using proven technology that consumers already have. No one who's commented really see's the need to adopt yet another slice of spectrum for consumer use, least of all low band. The issue in Paradise was not lack of technology.

Yeah, the cell phone alerts were a big hit up North

 

[nd5y]

I admit I didn't think the Military was using 38 MHz much, but I have had several people correct me

Why do you think that the military doesn't use 46.6-47 and 49.6-50 MHz?

 

[a417]

Please don't take this wrong, but are you the same group of people that will blow a 100 million dollars on a communications system when the existing system works...

These are @poltergeisty style questions and troll bait replies. Funny how you had an account for 7 years and then start just barraging the board with this fodder.

Have a good one.

It's also amusing that he disappears and then you show up.

 

[KN6SD]

Why do you think that the military doesn't use 46.6-47 and 49.6-50 MHz?

Wasn't 49.6 to 50 MHz flooded with part 15 crap in the 80's???

 

[mmckenna]

Please don't take this wrong, but are you the same group of people that will blow a 100 million dollars on a communications system when the existing system works...

No, not radio guys. That's usually politicians wooed by salesmen that do that. Most of us are quite happy with analog.

 

[KN6SD]

These are @poltergeisty style questions and troll bait replies. Funny how you had an account for 7 years and then start just barraging the board with this fodder.

Have a good one.

It's also amusing that he disappears and then you show up.

I don't do the Net much, I usually just read the posts...……. I'm no Troll, but I do get harassed by all the experts for some reason...

 

[a417]

No, not radio guys. That's usually politicians wooed by salesmen that do that. Most of us are quite happy with analog.

Like Jonny Galaga's sig says somewhere "analog is ALREADY interoperable"