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

[KN6SD]

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.

Didn't the Feds change the rules for FRS, and allow the FRS users to transmit with up to 2 watts of output power on the REPEATER Outputs...… Sheeesh...

Didn't the Feds change the rules for FRS, and allow the FRS users to transmit with up to 2 watts of output power on the REPEATER Outputs...… Sheeesh...

Talk about taking a Dump on the licensed users for no apparent reason.....

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Didn't the Feds change the rules for FRS, and allow the FRS users to transmit with up to 2 watts of output power on the REPEATER Outputs...… Sheeesh...

Yeah, because of all the unlicensed bubble pack GMRS users. GMRS is undergoing death by papercuts by the FCC. The last rule rewrite took forever and technology and the market changed in the meantime. It was a surprise when they finally got moving. I scrambled to get the FCC to fix errors in the new rules. I think the FCC would like GMRS to go away. For those who understand it, it is a thing of beauty. For the vendors, it is just another temporary place to park millions of license free crappy talkies.

 

[NC1]

And they should allow digital (DMR, P25, etc) as well.

That is never ever going to happen, they already said so. Nope.
Maybe in 60 to 75 years they might consider looking at it again.

 

[KN6SD]

Yeah, because of all the unlicensed bubble pack GMRS users. GMRS is undergoing death by papercuts by the FCC. The last rule rewrite took forever and technology and the market changed in the meantime. It was a surprise when they finally got moving. I scrambled to get the FCC to fix errors in the new rules. I think the FCC would like GMRS to go away. For those who understand it, it is a thing of beauty. For the vendors, it is just another temporary place to park millions of license free crappy talkies.

My gut feeling is that the Repeater Inputs will loose protection in the future, and you'll have 23 channels of UHF CB...

My gut feeling is that the Repeater Inputs will loose protection in the future, and you'll have 23 channels of UHF CB...

Apparently Midland isn't to concerned with having a versatile Repeater capable GMRS product line... My first impression of their products was that the repeaters were an after thought....

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

"Bill4long said:


And they should allow digital (DMR, P25, etc) as well."

That is never ever going to happen, they already said so. Nope.
Maybe in 60 to 75 years they might consider looking at it again.

There are some arguments pro and con on the digital modulations in GMRS. Personally, I think DMR and its networking capabilities has a valuable place. But there is a lot of debate about IP networking due to scriveners errors in the rule rewrite and valid arguments about co-channel monitoring.

The best avenue for attack would be a properly thought out petition arguing for the need to permit PROPERLY CONFIGURED Part 90 radios on GMRS. The argument can be based on need for full performance (16K0F3E) GMRS radios.

But I see I am straying off the MURS topic. Maybe this should be a general Part 95 topic?

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Apparently Midland isn't to concerned with having a versatile Repeater capable GMRS product line... My first impression of their products was that the repeaters were an after thought....

Midland could do so much better. I would immediately buy a few of their MXT275 MicroMobile radios with hand held control if only they were wideband radios. But for some reason Midland is obsessed with making NONCOMPLIANT narrowband radios and marketing them as GMRS. You can't use these radios on a wideband repeater and expect anyone to have a lot of success. At best it is a compromise in performance.

 

[NC1]

There are some arguments pro and con on the digital modulations in GMRS. Personally, I think DMR and its networking capabilities has a valuable place. But there is a lot of debate about IP networking due to scriveners errors in the rule rewrite and valid arguments about co-channel monitoring.

The best avenue for attack would be a properly thought out petition arguing for the need to permit PROPERLY CONFIGURED Part 90 radios on GMRS. The argument can be based on need for full performance (16K0F3E) GMRS radios.

But I see I am straying off the MURS topic. Maybe this should be a general Part 95 topic?

This was already debated to death and beyond before the rule changes.
They simply do not see any valid reason or advantage in doing so. Many repeaters are already linked through a backbone, and it is working very well. For every 1 person that wants digital modes, P25, etc, there are 75 opposed. It is geared for simplicity and the average non-technical person, and obviously that is where it will remain for a very long time. "Get your ham license, you can do all that and so much more" will be their reply. I would have to agree with them since you could probably get it done in a month.

 

[alcahuete]

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

What in the world does that have to do with anything??? Like I said, this is a completely silly idea that nobody cares about, nobody will ever buy off on, and nobody will ever use. If you think that people are going to drive around with 49MHz mobile radios in their car, when they can use GMRS with a 6" antenna, you need a major reality check.

The problem is that you are here with your "proposal" but refuse to listen to any advice. You literally will not take any advice from anyone in this forum. You just want to argue how great your 49MHz proposal is, and just open nonsensical thread after thread on this subject.

Like I said, take your proposal to the consumers and see what they say about putting a low band antenna on their cars, then take it to the FCC and watch them laugh you right out of the building. Like I already said, this is a solution in search of a problem. NOBODY needs this radio service. NOBODY wants this radio service.

 

[milcom_chaser]

Do you have Triple AES-4096?

Are you smuggling?

 

[vagrant]

"Get your ham license, you can do all that and so much more" will be their reply. I would have to agree with them since you could probably get it done in a month.

I did and I do. A Motorola APX 7000xe and an XTL5000 in the vehicle do that and so much more, like encryption and a DVRS (Digital Vehicular Repeater System). I use those radios daily so would I purchase a dual band MURS/GMRS (VHF/UHF) handheld...yes, I would purchase several so that I could hand them out to friends. Oh wait...I already purchased several radios that can do that and they cost about $20 each.

It's easy, get a license, be courteous, have fun.

Signed,
Courteous Law Breaker

1. I do not use encryption or P25 where it is not allowed.
2. I have been known to smuggle store bought licorice into a movie theater. I also use envelopes when sending letters.

 

[KN6SD]

"Bill4long said:


And they should allow digital (DMR, P25, etc) as well."



There are some arguments pro and con on the digital modulations in GMRS. Personally, I think DMR and its networking capabilities has a valuable place. But there is a lot of debate about IP networking due to scriveners errors in the rule rewrite and valid arguments about co-channel monitoring.

The best avenue for attack would be a properly thought out petition arguing for the need to permit PROPERLY CONFIGURED Part 90 radios on GMRS. The argument can be based on need for full performance (16K0F3E) GMRS radios.

But I see I am straying off the MURS topic. Maybe this should be a general Part 95 topic?

I thought the Midland stuff was Part 95 approved???

"Bill4long said:


And they should allow digital (DMR, P25, etc) as well."



There are some arguments pro and con on the digital modulations in GMRS. Personally, I think DMR and its networking capabilities has a valuable place. But there is a lot of debate about IP networking due to scriveners errors in the rule rewrite and valid arguments about co-channel monitoring.

The best avenue for attack would be a properly thought out petition arguing for the need to permit PROPERLY CONFIGURED Part 90 radios on GMRS. The argument can be based on need for full performance (16K0F3E) GMRS radios.

But I see I am straying off the MURS topic. Maybe this should be a general Part 95 topic?

The problem with allowing Digital Modulation is: What protocol should everyone use for uniformity? Some will say, "DMR", others "P25" etc...

 

[mmckenna]

The problem with allowing Digital Modulation is: What protocol should everyone use for uniformity? Some will say, "DMR", others "P25" etc...

The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.

In other words, everyone will have their favorite and either demand its chosen, or will use it no matter what the rules say. Not sure what the FCC would do. They have a bad habit of selling out to the highest bidder, so if they chose one digital mode, there might be some lobbying going on. On the other hand, if they make it a free for all, it'll be a mess.
The nice thing about analog is it widely adopted, common enough to be a de-facto standard and everyone can more or less get along.
Throw P25, DMR, NXDN, D-star, etc, all together on the same channel and it'll be a mess.
The idea is to keep it from becoming a mess and allow everyone to share the limited number of channels. Analog works well for that.

Choosing the standard will be the hard part.

 

[KN6SD]

Midland could do so much better. I would immediately buy a few of their MXT275 MicroMobile radios with hand held control if only they were wideband radios. But for some reason Midland is obsessed with making NONCOMPLIANT narrowband radios and marketing them as GMRS. You can't use these radios on a wideband repeater and expect anyone to have a lot of success. At best it is a compromise in performance.

Midland seems more interested in marketing to the Off Road crowd than the radio folks...

The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.

In other words, everyone will have their favorite and either demand its chosen, or will use it no matter what the rules say. Not sure what the FCC would do. They have a bad habit of selling out to the highest bidder, so if they chose one digital mode, there might be some lobbying going on. On the other hand, if they make it a free for all, it'll be a mess.
The nice thing about analog is it widely adopted, common enough to be a de-facto standard and everyone can more or less get along.
Throw P25, DMR, NXDN, D-star, etc, all together on the same channel and it'll be a mess.
The idea is to keep it from becoming a mess and allow everyone to share the limited number of channels. Analog works well for that.

Choosing the standard will be the hard part.

You want to get a real fight going in a room full of Hams, start the D-Star or Fusion conversation

What in the world does that have to do with anything??? Like I said, this is a completely silly idea that nobody cares about, nobody will ever buy off on, and nobody will ever use. If you think that people are going to drive around with 49MHz mobile radios in their car, when they can use GMRS with a 6" antenna, you need a major reality check.

The problem is that you are here with your "proposal" but refuse to listen to any advice. You literally will not take any advice from anyone in this forum. You just want to argue how great your 49MHz proposal is, and just open nonsensical thread after thread on this subject.

Like I said, take your proposal to the consumers and see what they say about putting a low band antenna on their cars, then take it to the FCC and watch them laugh you right out of the building. Like I already said, this is a solution in search of a problem. NOBODY needs this radio service. NOBODY wants this radio service.

Old Man trying to out rank you based on years of radio play

Calm down, you keep saying no one cares about my idea, but I do, and that's all that counts...

 

[mmckenna]

You want to get a real fight going in a room full of Hams, start the D-Star or Fusion conversation

I love setting off hams, it's so easy. They'll argue over anything.

 

[KN6SD]

The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.

In other words, everyone will have their favorite and either demand its chosen, or will use it no matter what the rules say. Not sure what the FCC would do. They have a bad habit of selling out to the highest bidder, so if they chose one digital mode, there might be some lobbying going on. On the other hand, if they make it a free for all, it'll be a mess.
The nice thing about analog is it widely adopted, common enough to be a de-facto standard and everyone can more or less get along.
Throw P25, DMR, NXDN, D-star, etc, all together on the same channel and it'll be a mess.
The idea is to keep it from becoming a mess and allow everyone to share the limited number of channels. Analog works well for that.

Choosing the standard will be the hard part.

What ever happened to the "Sterling Radio Group", we're they the lobbying muscle for the GMRS licensee's back in the old days???

 

[mmckenna]

Midland seems more interested in marketing to the Off Road crowd than the radio folks...

Maybe.
But I think they care more about profits. That means selling cheaply built radios to as many suckers customers as they can. The average consumer barely knows which end of the mic to talk into, never mind the difference between radio services. Like I said earlier, there are those that cannot understand why CB Channel 2 can't talk to Marine VHF channel 2, TV channel 2, FRS channel 2, MURS channel 2, or their washing machine.
They don't care about technology, they care about price, looks and somewhere way down the line, performance. All you have to do is read Amazon reviews on CB, FRS, GMRS, MURS, Cheap Chinese Radios, etc.

 

[KN6SD]

Maybe.
But I think they care more about profits. That means selling cheaply built radios to as many suckers customers as they can. The average consumer barely knows which end of the mic to talk into, never mind the difference between radio services. Like I said earlier, there are those that cannot understand why CB Channel 2 can't talk to Marine VHF channel 2, TV channel 2, FRS channel 2, MURS channel 2, or their washing machine.
They don't care about technology, they care about price, looks and somewhere way down the line, performance. All you have to do is read Amazon reviews on CB, FRS, GMRS, MURS, Cheap Chinese Radios, etc.

True, very true...….

Are there any old farts in here??? I seem to remember an organized group representing the GMRS licensees against the Rat Shack FRS proposal in the 90's……..

 

[KevinC]

I love setting off hams, it's so easy. They'll argue over anything.

As evidenced by this thread.

 

[KN6SD]

As evidenced by this thread.

No sour grapes here, who went off???

 

[KN6SD]

What ever happened to the "Sterling Radio Group", we're they the lobbying muscle for the GMRS licensee's back in the old days???

My point of that question is, I think the GMRS users were a little better organized in the old days. Unfortunately, in the long run it didn't do them any good, Rat Shack got their way and FRS was born...…...