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

[nd5y]

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……..

There was a Personal Radio Steering Group (PRSG). I never heard exactly what happened to it.

 

[KN6SD]

There was a Personal Radio Steering Group (PRSG). I never heard exactly what happened to it.

THAT'S It...… Thank you, I don't know where I came up with the other name, ugh, must be old age catching up.... I remember PRSG running an Ad every now and then in Popular Communications magazine...….

 

[vagrant]

"...Rat Shack got their way and FRS was born".

It's funny how money and lobbying efforts can have success. That would probably be needed to really get GMRS/MURS combo radios into acceptance, along with a 2W limit and leaving out the low power FRS freqs. Approved radios like that may sell.

 

[KN6SD]

Ah, the good ole days when the mail man/lady would bring PopComm and Monitoring times to my mailbox every month...

 

[KN6SD]

It's funny how money and lobbying efforts can have success. That would probably be needed to really get GMRS/MURS combo radios into acceptance, along with a 2W limit and leaving out the low power FRS freqs. Approved radios like that may sell.

I believe you're right, that's why I was stirring the pot with the manufactures... You know, just trying to plant a seed

 

[mmckenna]

There was a Personal Radio Steering Group (PRSG). I never heard exactly what happened to it.

Yeah, Corwin Moore and the PRSG, they kind of fizzled out. I have one of their old GMRS repeater guides around here somewhere. There's been other attempts, but it takes strong leadership, support and MONEY.

 

[vagrant]

I would purchase approved radios like I mentioned. For my non-radio minded friends those radios would be simple channel 1 through whatever. Tell them to keep it on channel 1 (MURS) when in vehicles with external antennas or long distance. Turn it to channel 6 (FRS/GMRS) for closer in camp communications. For them, the fewer knobs and buttons reduce potential issues and subsequent headaches.

 

[NC1]

The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
Choosing the standard will be the hard part.

The FCC said the standard will be analog. Getting them to add anything else will be impossible right now.

Even if a need to change was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, they could just abandon it like CB, and even IF (and that is a big IF) they entertained a discussion, any decision would be many years down the line - and making the change official will be many years after that. You know how long it takes them to make changes to any service.

It will be analog, for at least our lifetimes anyway.

 

[mmckenna]

It will be analog, for at least our lifetimes anyway.

Yep, that's what I figure. Our local public safety agencies have all agreed to stay analog due to the high cost of replacing all the equipment for little benefit.

And remembering how long it took to get the basic changes made to the GMRS rules, I think we are all pretty safe with our 25KHz FM.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

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

It is approved, but the modulation is not compliant with GMRS 16K0F3E. It is a matter of that it meets FCC rules for minimum performance, but it does not comply with maximum performance PERMITTED by GMRS rules.

A bit like buying a tiny SmartCar vs buying a Mercedes A-220 sedan. Both comply with US NHTSA rules, but one does not provide the performance of the other.

 

[techman210]

Yes, I'm a Ham.. That's why I've been thinking about a new modern two-way service for the public. After all, we (Hams) don't need casual users on our bands, we want radio people

What you need to do, is put that ham license to work and do some field experimentation and testing in the 6 meter band. Get some friends, some lowband commercial or ham radios and tune them to one of the simplex frequencies in that band, and set them all the way down to 4 watts and see how well they work.

There’s a darn good reason that commercial mobile radios in the 30-50 MHz band are typically 60-120 watts. That’s to compensate for higher natural and man made noise in the band - which increases in low humidity conditions like those encountered during wildfires- and the inefficiency of antennas anything less than a quarter wave whip.

If your testing is successful and well documented, drop that on the feds. They love documentation almost as much as they love lobbyists. Maybe you can bring back ACSB modulation and make that work in-between the current allocated channels. That also allows a form of CTCSS as well.

 

[KevinC]

I found a similar discussion here...

38 MHz for the Public?

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...

forums.qrz.com

 

[p1879]

I really like the fact that MURS is un-congested in many areas. Outdoors enthusiasts who have serious need of VHF-characteristic penetration into forest and other capabilities think of MURS as a major asset. The last thing users want is for MURS to gain hundreds of thousands of new and undisciplined operators who may compromise communications. Murs sure is suited for farmers, ranchers, hikers and hunters, to name a of the beneficiaries of the service. We are only talking 5 frequencies for all of our great nation.

900 mhz has some serious spectrum available for Part 15 use. This may be a great frontier for some type of "road comms". The potential technologies that can be used in this part of the spectrum give wide flexibility and greater traffic-handling capacity for the masses. We are lucky to have the Part 15 mix that we have.

It is a good point about the 46/49 mhz frequencies and their utilization. I like the idea of having a "party line" service on these channels for the elderly to chat around the neighborhood and spread the word. It surely would need a piece of wire out the window! Monitoring such a service could make you a fully-qualified Arthritis Advisor in record time.

 

[KN6SD]

Sheeeshhh, it's not like I suggested using 144 MHz to 145 MHz for a new two-way service...

Just keep doing the same thing over and over and over and over... NEVER Try to envision something new with a positive impact, just focus on the negative...

Hmmm, sounds like cable news...

 

[nd5y]

... NEVER Try to envision something new with a positive impact, just focus on the negative...

You don't seem to understand that even though your proposals are positive they will never happen because the FCC, NTIA and DoD will never reallocate spectrum for something like that.

 

[a417]

Sheeeshhh, it's not like I suggested using 144 MHz to 145 MHz for a new two-way service...

No, you suggested a new radio service in 49.5 - 49.9mhz in this post, and a new system in 38 to 38.9mhz in another post.

Just keep doing the same thing over and over and over and over... NEVER Try to envision something new with a positive impact, just focus on the negative...

Besides your relatively weak local complaints about what we already have in place, you have yet to present a truly beneficial plan proposal that I see would benefit the populace. If we didn't have the chicken band, MURS, FRS/GMRS then your proposals would be met with something other than passive dismissals, as you would be bringing something to the conversation that isn't already implemented. You don't seem to like what you see in your locale, and are trying to conjure up a groundswell of support to take it to...whomever and pitch it. As @mmckenna (i believe it was) posted earlier, all your new bright shiny suggestions required reallocation, bidding, rules, studies, implementations etc...

I'm sorry, but your signal to noise ratio is too low.

have a good day.

 

[techman210]

Nothing really "new" has been presented here other than a couple of RX-only channels for Government to broadcast on, and of course, another band.

I'm wondering how much experience the OP has with VHF lowband propagation. He's not telling us of any. He also wants 11K0F3E modulation in a band that is exempt from narrowbanding requirements. And the NB mandate created other problems, such as reduced range, and didn't solve any problems. The mention of "4 watts RMS" indicates a certain misunderstanding of how power is measured in a FM carrier.

What would be new, would be to incorporate some selective, group-call and "all call" system within the radio. Also, you could make it a SDR-based radio which would scan the band and make a histogram of channel usage. All radios would monitor a simplex "control channel" and when a call is made, a transmission would go out and a channel assignment to a voice channel would be announced. Selcall to one unit, a handshake would happen before a assignment would be made. If the modulation was TDMA, then the SDR would have the ability to constantly scan the available channels between timeslots, keeping the histogram updated, especially important in a mobile environment. Japan did this with their analog, simplex FM 900 MHz CB service in the mid-80's.

A quieter band needs to be selected. Take a 500 KHz segment from the 220-222 MHz band from underutilized commercial use. It will be quieter, and the antennas more efficient. HT's would be usable. Make it also IP so base stations could be attached to a 900 MHz FHSS mesh router to allow some recoverable WAN connections over a wider geographical area.

THAT would be new.

 

[nd5y]

Take a 500 KHz segment from the 220-222 MHz band from underutilized commercial use.

That will never happen because of Positive Train Control.

 

[KN6SD]

No, you suggested a new radio service in 49.5 - 49.9mhz in this post, and a new system in 38 to 38.9mhz in another post.


Besides your relatively weak local complaints about what we already have in place, you have yet to present a truly beneficial plan proposal that I see would benefit the populace. If we didn't have the chicken band, MURS, FRS/GMRS then your proposals would be met with something other than passive dismissals, as you would be bringing something to the conversation that isn't already implemented. You don't seem to like what you see in your locale, and are trying to conjure up a groundswell of support to take it to...whomever and pitch it. As @mmckenna (i believe it was) posted earlier, all your new bright shiny suggestions required reallocation, bidding, rules, studies, implementations etc...

I'm sorry, but your signal to noise ratio is too low.

have a good day.

What I am proposing is an expansion of MURS that would include 49 MHz.. BTW: I have increased my 4 watts to 25 watts for better Mobile-to-Mobile range. The new MURS Service would be a "Hail Mary" radio service that requires NO License and a minimum amount of two-way radio knowledge to set up and operate. CB is extremely limited for local communications when solar activity is High and the MUF is around 27/28 MHz. Is there a possibility for skip on 49 MHz? Yes, are the openings as strong and consistent as 27 MHz, NO..

I also believe the VHF-Hi portion of MURS should allow 5 watts of output power, not 2.

I have noticed lots of folks on the forums seem to be threated by mere suggestions of a new service. Most offer little constructive input, and some are downright rude. Probably because THEY DIDN'T Think of it...…. ha ha ha ha

 

[KN6SD]

What you need to do, is put that ham license to work and do some field experimentation and testing in the 6 meter band. Get some friends, some lowband commercial or ham radios and tune them to one of the simplex frequencies in that band, and set them all the way down to 4 watts and see how well they work.

Why??? All one has to do is use a program called, "RADIO MOBILE"...…..