DUAL-BAND MURS Radios??? Would you buy one?

[KN6SD]

FEATURES: The New MURS radios should be Dual-Band (VHF Lo and VHF Hi), be capable of Crossbanding, have the Scan Feature with individual channel lockout, Weather Alert, Channel 9 Priority, Built-in RF Power Meter, SWR Meter, and Signal Strength Meter.

Just to name a few...........

 

[robertmac]

Why not make everything from your 38 MHz to 50 MHz CB?

 

[KN6SD]

Why not make everything from your 38 MHz to 50 MHz CB?

I believe the 38 MHz idea is dead... To much Military use there

If the new MURS radio was approved by the FCC after some rules modifications, I don't think the stores could keep them on the shelves (for awhile, nothing lasts forever)...

 

[Markb]

I found a small error:

4B. 154.570 MHz (20.00 kHz) Off Road Vehicle (4WD) channel --- Short Range

Should read:
4B. 154.570 MHz (20.00 kHz) WalMart Ops Channel --- Short Range

 

[mmckenna]

I know, that's why I suggested the Crossband feature........

There would need to be a time out feature on the cross band repeat.
-Unless there was mandatory CTCSS/DCS on the channels, a loose squelch could keep it keyed up, wasting a channel.
-Users would ass-u-me that it was "their channel" and leave it set up 24x7.
-Someone would stick a radio up on a hill top with the cross band repeat set up indefinitely.

I think for consumers, features like cross band repeat would be a headache for other users.


What I'd rather see is the FCC "MURS'ify" some of the UHF itinerant channels. Many of the users on there are unlicensed or running on expired licenses. It's the same situation that lead to the creation of VHF MURS. 464.500, 464.550, etc.
At least a dual band VHF/UHF antenna is a manageable size, hand held radios would be manageable, and there are already radios on the market that could be adjusted by the manufacturer to be compatible.
If people really want cross band repeat, allow it between VHF and UHF.
But I don't really care enough to put the effort into writing it up and submitting it to the FCC.

 

[KN6SD]

There would need to be a time out feature on the cross band repeat.
-Unless there was mandatory CTCSS/DCS on the channels, a loose squelch could keep it keyed up, wasting a channel.
-Users would ass-u-me that it was "their channel" and leave it set up 24x7.
-Someone would stick a radio up on a hill top with the cross band repeat set up indefinitely.

I think for consumers, features like cross band repeat would be a headache for other users.


What I'd rather see is the FCC "MURS'ify" some of the UHF itinerant channels. Many of the users on there are unlicensed or running on expired licenses. It's the same situation that lead to the creation of VHF MURS. 464.500, 464.550, etc.
At least a dual band VHF/UHF antenna is a manageable size, hand held radios would be manageable, and there are already radios on the market that could be adjusted by the manufacturer to be compatible.
If people really want cross band repeat, allow it between VHF and UHF.
But I don't really care enough to put the effort into writing it up and submitting it to the FCC.

Agreed, the Crossband feature should require CTCSS or DCS to be used on both bands and have a max timer of 2 minutes...

I found a small error:

4B. 154.570 MHz (20.00 kHz) Off Road Vehicle (4WD) channel --- Short Range

Should read:
4B. 154.570 MHz (20.00 kHz) WalMart Ops Channel --- Short Range

That's funny...

 

[a417]

Hello.

I have a FPP clean-cab Spectra with a modified TLA KVL
I frequently use it on MURS.
What channels would encryption be allowed on?

 

[KN6SD]

I believe the 38 MHz idea is dead... To much Military use there

38 MHz is dead...

Uniden, President Electronics are you Listening? Say goodbye to CB radio as your primary consumer communications device, and say "HELLO" to the new and improved MURS radio service... Off the grid communications for the 21st Century!!!

U.S. 49 MHz VHF-Lo *MURS Band Plan
TX/RX Mode of Operation FM (10 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
*Multi Use Radio Service (see Title 47, Chapter I, Subchapter D, Part 95 Subpart J)

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

Remember, we've moved on to a modified MURS radio service with the 49 MHz VHF-Lo band added to the Hi band allocation...

There would need to be a time out feature on the cross band repeat.
-Unless there was mandatory CTCSS/DCS on the channels, a loose squelch could keep it keyed up, wasting a channel.
-Users would ass-u-me that it was "their channel" and leave it set up 24x7.
-Someone would stick a radio up on a hill top with the cross band repeat set up indefinitely.

I think for consumers, features like cross band repeat would be a headache for other users.


What I'd rather see is the FCC "MURS'ify" some of the UHF itinerant channels. Many of the users on there are unlicensed or running on expired licenses. It's the same situation that lead to the creation of VHF MURS. 464.500, 464.550, etc.
At least a dual band VHF/UHF antenna is a manageable size, hand held radios would be manageable, and there are already radios on the market that could be adjusted by the manufacturer to be compatible.
If people really want cross band repeat, allow it between VHF and UHF.
But I don't really care enough to put the effort into writing it up and submitting it to the FCC.

Now that was some constructive feedback! Much appreciated...

 

[milcom_chaser]

Ok, so all our Uniden scanners should receive a firmware up date for the Service Search Menu to include these new allocations...

 

[Hans13]

What I'd rather see is the FCC "MURS'ify" some of the UHF itinerant channels.

Yes, this is something I too have been hoping to see in the future.

 

[AK9R]

YES we do!

No, we don't. Your two threads about a dual-band MURS radio have been merged. Your thread in the CB forum about a hypothetical 38 MHz CB service is a different matter. However, I caution you to not cross-post as it is a rules violation and I also caution you to not muddy one topic with posts on a different topic.

 

[KN6SD]

No, we don't. Your two threads about a dual-band MURS radio have been merged. Your thread in the CB forum about a hypothetical 38 MHz CB service is a different matter. However, I caution you to not cross-post as it is a rules violation and I also caution you to not muddy one topic with posts on a different topic.

I appreciate the "Merge" instead just deleting the content... When I started the conversation it kinda got squirrely, it turned out to be two threads, one dealing with equipment and the other dealing with the spectrum issues presented by the proposal...

The online wise guys didn't help the situation either

 

[ladn]

Regulatory issues aside, I can't see this as a practical radio because of the low band component. The physics of antenna design dictate length and a shortened whip and minimal ground plane for 49 MHz just isn't going to cut it.

And do you really think anyone would actually follow the channel usage and power "recommendations" any more than they do on 27 MHz CB?

 

[alcahuete]

Regulatory issues aside, I can't see this as a practical radio because of the low band component. The physics of antenna design dictate length and a shortened whip and minimal ground plane for 49 MHz just isn't going to cut it.

And do you really think anyone would actually follow the channel usage and power "recommendations" any more than they do on 27 MHz CB?

To expand on this, you are here with this proposal in a radio forum comprised largely of professionals who do this stuff for a living, hams, and other radio enthusiasts. You really should be taking this to the consumers. The consumers do not care at all what frequency the radios are on. What they do care about is slapping a huge antenna on their car, or a handheld radio with a huge whip antenna in an attempt to get some decent range. People can go to WalMart or get on eBay and buy a bubble pack radio or CCR that works reasonably well, with a tiny antenna.

You have to offer something better than what's already out there.

 

[KN6SD]

To expand on this, you are here with this proposal in a radio forum comprised largely of professionals who do this stuff for a living, hams, and other radio enthusiasts. You really should be taking this to the consumers. The consumers do not care at all what frequency the radios are on. What they do care about is slapping a huge antenna on their car, or a handheld radio with a huge whip antenna in an attempt to get some decent range. People can go to WalMart or get on eBay and buy a bubble pack radio or CCR that works reasonably well, with a tiny antenna.

You have to offer something better than what's already out there.

REALLY, I'll bet you I've been in the hobby longer than you have

BTW: This new service is NOT one that will accommodate users that love HT's... And yes, I know how long a 1/4 (4.7 ft.), 1/2 (8.43 ft.), or 5/8 (11.75 ft.) wave antenna at 49 MHz will need to be...

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Why not make everything from your 38 MHz to 50 MHz CB?

Anyone with a business (like an LLC) can get a part 90 license for low band itinerant channels . While not for hobby use, no reason that with some forethought, some channels could be made into ad-hoc meeting place for communications "professionals" to coordinate activities. EMCOM Pros could use them in a pinch as well to coordinate interoperations. It might be helpful to discuss which ones are best.

 

[KN6SD]

Anyone with a business (like an LLC) can get a part 90 license for low band itinerant channels . While not for hobby use, no reason that with some forethought, some channels could be made into ad-hoc meeting place for communications "professionals" to coordinate activities. EMCOM Pros could use them in a pinch as well to coordinate interoperations. It might be helpful to discuss which ones are best.

That doesn't sound like a "MURS" type service for the public...

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Hello.

I have a FPP clean-cab Spectra with a modified TLA KVL
I frequently use it on MURS.
What channels would encryption be allowed on?

Do you have Triple AES-4096?

 

[mmckenna]

BTW: This new service is NOT one that will accommodate users that love HT's... And yes, I know how long a 1/4, 1/2, or 5/8 wave antenna at 49 MHz will need to be...

Well, low band needs efficient antennas with a good ground plane to be efficient. That means big antennas.
Consumers don't like big antennas. Sort of why we don't often see people driving around with 102" whips on their cars anymore.
Consumers that are accustomed to iPhones don't want a big hand held radio with a bigger antenna that can ONLY allow voice traffic between users. No Instagram, no Facbook, no text messages, no surfin' the web....
Consumers won't want an efficient low band antenna on top of their car, or their house. They want Mickey Mouse FRS radios with "45 mile range", "Privacy Codes", and a cute little low profile antenna.

Figure out a way to cheat the laws of physics and make a 49MHz radio with a 3" tall antenna and you might have yourself a winner.

Meantime, GMRS with a 6" tall antenna works pretty well.

But getting consumers to do anything other than cell phones is likely to run into challenges.

This radio service seems to be aimed at hobbyists more than anything. Not sure why we need another hobby radio service. I still think adding FM to the CB radio service will solve many of its issues. That, and GMRS and better adoption of MURS. They already exist.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

That doesn't sound like a "MURS" type service for the public...

The great "unwashed" public has a lot to choose from. But, they are going to fall into two camps 1) Bubble pack camouflage FRS/GMRS combo radio from Walmart, 2) Cheap Chinese Radio from BaoFeng their buddy told them to buy for $17.95 on Amazon because it "has all the frequencies plus a flashlight". These folks don't know MURS from shineola.

My interest is how to promote and save GMRS as the last bastion of high performance radio for Citizens. I don't want FCC to give it away to corporations to ruin.