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
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 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.
My comment had nothing to do with being afraid of change. Maybe the consensus of replies means something?
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
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.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.
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.
38 and 49 MHz won't be much different than 27 MHz. Maybe slightly fewer openings but skip will still be a problem.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.
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.
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.
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.
Why do you think that the military doesn't use 46.6-47 and 49.6-50 MHz?I admit I didn't think the Military was using 38 MHz much, but I have had several people correct me
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.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...
Why do you think that the military doesn't use 46.6-47 and 49.6-50 MHz?
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.
Like Jonny Galaga's sig says somewhere "analog is ALREADY interoperable"No, not radio guys. That's usually politicians wooed by salesmen that do that. Most of us are quite happy with analog.