• To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:

    Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.

    If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.

    To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.

    The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.

    For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).

    This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.

Modern CB Upgrades

Status
Not open for further replies.

jonwienke

More Info Coming Soon!
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
12,960
Location
VA
Backwards compatibility is a completely separate issue from the relative S/N ratios of AM vs FM.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
4,306
"FM wouldn't be a frill or bell and whistle. Just a cleaner, crisper signal. "
Cleaner?
It would be totally incompatible with the existing user base (10 million units? 20? 40?) and pretty much a total waste for anyone wanting to interact with them. Requiring all existing users to throw out their older equipment, to work with the new ones.
So who's going to volunteer to pass out all the new free equipment to the existing users? That's the only way they are going to vote for it. The majority will call it a waste of time and money, the folks who want "more" from their radios, can always upgrade to a "more" service.
How are you going to get millions of unlicensed CB operators to vote on anything and why should they?

CB users in Europe can buy radios with AM/FM modes, AM/FM/SSB and a myriad of channel plans. Most of those radios have channel plans already compatible with US. No one in Europe is confused or locked out. Nothing would obsolete those millions of AM an AM/SSB radios already in the US.

I have suggested FM/FHSS as an enhanced mode. It would expand the existing 40 channels to a hundreds, or a thousands of virtual channels, (talk groups) each with some degree of privacy and freedom from interference. Not everyone who buys a CB wants to hear all of the traffic or static noise on the channel. This mode would require a few hundred lines of software code (mostly available today in cordless phones) and use existing hardware configurations.

A radio seeking to transmit FM/FHSS would, based upon user selections *, transmit a preamble on a randomly selected CB channel. The preamble would serve to collect the (scanning) receivers of all idle radios to listen for a unique data word pertaining to all other radios selected to the same talk group containing matching data. The data word would contain the FHSS code pertaining to the talkgroup including a selected digital squelch code (DCS). The hopping sequence would be entirely unique so that radios with same channel and different DCS code would never occupy same frequency at same time and the DCS code would further block random or wideband interference. Synchronization would rely upon the stability of a clock in the radios and the timing of the preamble.

* Example: Talk Groups 1-999 and DCS code 1-83

None of this would constitute encryption because 1) The unique codes are not cryptographic 2) Reception by brute force can be accomplished using 40 receivers.
 

KD8DVR

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,186
Location
Columbus, Ohio
"FM wouldn't be a frill or bell and whistle. Just a cleaner, crisper signal. "
Cleaner?
It would be totally incompatible with the existing user base (10 million units? 20? 40?) and pretty much a total waste for anyone wanting to interact with them. Requiring all existing users to throw out their older equipment, to work with the new ones.
So who's going to volunteer to pass out all the new free equipment to the existing users? That's the only way they are going to vote for it. The majority will call it a waste of time and money, the folks who want "more" from their radios, can always upgrade to a "more" service.
I'd support ADDING FM.... Not Replacing AM with FM.

I do see a point, where now you'd have FM in competition with AM. 2 modes in conflict with one another.

Your point is also valid for if you want more, upgrade. MURS, GMRS, etc. already have FM.

I suppose, in this matter, I can support all sides of the issue simultaneously.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
4,306
I'd support ADDING FM.... Not Replacing AM with FM.

I do see a point, where now you'd have FM in competition with AM. 2 modes in conflict with one another.

Your point is also valid for if you want more, upgrade. MURS, GMRS, etc. already have FM.

I suppose, in this matter, I can support all sides of the issue simultaneously.
AM and SSB conflict as well, but SSB users have congregated to CH 38
 

viper1833

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2015
Messages
12
Location
Galesburg, IL.
Cool

These are some very good replies and discussion on this. So far its seems that the Majority of the people responding to this thread seem to be in favor of the idea. Hopefully some people that work for companies such as Uniden, and other radio groups see this, and maybe make some proposal's to the FCC. Time will tell.
 

viper1833

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2015
Messages
12
Location
Galesburg, IL.
"FM wouldn't be a frill or bell and whistle. Just a cleaner, crisper signal. "
Cleaner?
It would be totally incompatible with the existing user base (10 million units? 20? 40?) and pretty much a total waste for anyone wanting to interact with them. Requiring all existing users to throw out their older equipment, to work with the new ones.
So who's going to volunteer to pass out all the new free equipment to the existing users? That's the only way they are going to vote for it. The majority will call it a waste of time and money, the folks who want "more" from their radios, can always upgrade to a "more" service.
No one is talking about average American Citizen to vote on this. This thread is about discussing, something that should have been taken seriously years ago by Groups, and the FCC. People see how well FM 11 meter work in the EU, and heck even UHF Cb in Australia. Guess what people want that its human nature, thats why you see so many export radios being used in this country illegally in America. Why? because they work and work well. Not that I use one, i use a FCC type accepted equipment, because, I don't want to risk my GMRS License. People want to advance technology its human nature, as far as people giving up there old equipment yeah some will some won't. However I personally think that people would invest money in updated radio gear. Its not like the government passed out FRS radio's when the Band was created years ago, and why should they. Same with CB, people would buy, it and utilize it very well. As one person already stated, people don't want to listen to everything on CB, that just wanna use it for personal communication for there family, and work. To many people trying to make things into HAM radio. GMRS/FRS/CB are not ham radio, thats what a Ham License is for. People need to stop with the mentality that we should make stuff like ham. None of my proposal's make it like ham, just a way to facilitate more personal communication for people who still want it. Its just like GMRS, it's technically for personal/family use, thats the point of the License. To many people wanna act like that's a ham band, if it was HAM we would have to take a test.
 

SpugEddy

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2015
Messages
419
Location
Camden County South Jersey
I have 3 "export" radios that are 11 meter all with USB/LSB/AM/FM
I have to say the FM circuitry in these radios is horrible, as is the
FM functionality. I've had these radios checked over and over again.
(NOT MODIFIED) Everything is just as it should be and yet the FM
side of these radios stinks. I had a local guy who is just an electronics
genius (not a CB repairman) look at them and his words were, "The FM
circuits in these radios are nothing more than a gimmick" USB / LSB / AM
work fantastic. Especially on my HR2510 President Lincoln radio.
Nothing more than my 2 cents on the FM functionality.
BUT, I too would like to see some of the same changes.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
4,306
I have 3 "export" radios that are 11 meter all with USB/LSB/AM/FM
I have to say the FM circuitry in these radios is horrible, as is the
FM functionality. I've had these radios checked over and over again.
(NOT MODIFIED) Everything is just as it should be and yet the FM
side of these radios stinks. I had a local guy who is just an electronics
genius (not a CB repairman) look at them and his words were, "The FM
circuits in these radios are nothing more than a gimmick" USB / LSB / AM
work fantastic. Especially on my HR2510 President Lincoln radio.
Nothing more than my 2 cents on the FM functionality.
BUT, I too would like to see some of the same changes.
Likely compromizes have been made with respect to IF filter bandwidth and IF gain and limiting. The IF BW is likely a limitation of the CB channel spacing which was initially only to accomodate AM channels. Design of a good FM receiver is not difficult.

The FM mode in most amateur and CB 10 and 11 meter radios operates at only +/- 2 KHz deviation while +/- 5 KHz deviation is technically feasable, (the norm for low band LMR gear) but maybe not practicle given the CB channel spacing.
 

Ishmole

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
315
Location
Walden, NY
A couple of your requests are already possible and allowed by rule, however the manufacturers don't seem to find enough market depth to bother.

FM would be nice.

The lack of USB/LSB on radios is probably market driven. SSB adds cost to the radio, and in a market where the casual user see's a 25% markup on one radio vs another they are likely to pick the cheaper radio without an understanding of why the more expensive radio is so, pennies count. Plus, many serious users will run modded ham gear, shuning CB gear, so they will not buy it either. Higher prices, smaller market, less demand, higher prices, etc.

DCS/CTSS might be nice, but I bet not very useful for weeks at a time during solar cycle peak.

Remote heads have been done on CB, and they always sold relatively poorly. The people who wanted them really wanted them, but the majority of the folks did not care, so again, a niche market within a niche market.

T!
From 1966
 

Attachments

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top