MURS Mobile Transceivers

[DaveInDenver]

Truth to that. Citations that I've heard about came from tips to the FCC, they just don't have people just listening 24/7, waiting for someone to trip up. Someone (or likely several dozen someones) have to complain about their car stereos picking up weird audio when all they want to hear their morning traffic report before they even think about looking into it.

Probably the only non-critical (EMS, DoD) infrastructure tip that gets them off the dime would be someone squatting on a licensed business' frequency.

Also another example, we as hams are self policing, the ARRL has a few hundred official observers that act as liaisons. If you are in or potentially in violation you will get a warning from them first and they will also report to the FCC unlicensed hams and violations for us.

 

[EMrider]

I think you're 100% right on technical feasibility side. Not difficult at all. However there is a tremendous amount of overhead with bringing a product to market. I think that's what makes it a losing proposition. It would be fun to speculate on this. First would would be the price in the marketplace for such an item? Then figure out the cost to develop, test, source parts, supply chain management, mechanical engineering testing, product liability insurance cost, materials for product packaging, storage cost, marketing, advertising, and salary for people to do work, etc. Whatever that totals up, you gotta figure out what the profit margin would be, then determine how many units to sell to break even, and then finally profit. IMO, the costs would far exceed profit margins on such an item especially given the alternatives, FRS/GMRS/ amateur radio. If such an item exists, I would scoop up a set at a max price of $50 each. Any more than that, I'll pass onto licensed GMRS. <---Awesome.

I'm very much with you in same camp. MURS would be a great replacement for 11m CB. VHF/UHF alternative would be a huge win for many many reasons, fm modulation, shorter antennas, etc.

Regarding type-acceptance. I have an announcement.

It is my understanding after personally conducting about 80 hours of legal research, type-acceptance has never ever been enforced against an individual person operating a transmitter. NEVER.

Type acceptance is only enforced against manufacturers, and sellers of equipment.

Similar goes for GMRS enforcement actions. I have never ever found a single violation for individuals using bubble pack radios. Not once!

GMRS licensing as far as I could tell, has only ever been enforced against BUSINESSES (Hotels, Malls, tow truck companies, maid services, etc.) LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, or license holders of GMRS abusing the service. The first two should have been using business itinerant licenses. The later group, was out of compliance or using transmitter to jam, etc.

Examples: Four points Hotel, Repeater Group in So Cal., local government, small business, another business

This clown who jammed GMRS, cost him $24K

Searching back very far I could only find two instances of MURS enforcement actions.

This knuckle head selling gear on eBay, in 2006 And this 2009 order against Walmart

The FCC is like an animal, and It's a simple affair of searching and reading comprehension to understand how they operate, and how they behave. Everything is published in the public domain which is fantastic for transparency.

http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2015.html

I know I'm way off topic, but it's fun!

Always good to have some facts in the picture. Thanks.

Given that there are likely tens of thousands of Baofengs out there in the hands of users who have no clue about FCC rules, the lack of enforcement action is telling. Their limited resources are focused elsewhere.

R

 

[4x4junkie]

I think you're 100% right on technical feasibility side. Not difficult at all. However there is a tremendous amount of overhead with bringing a product to market. I think that's what makes it a losing proposition. It would be fun to speculate on this. First would would be the price in the marketplace for such an item? Then figure out the cost to develop, test, source parts, supply chain management, mechanical engineering testing, product liability insurance cost, materials for product packaging, storage cost, marketing, advertising, and salary for people to do work, etc. Whatever that totals up, you gotta figure out what the profit margin would be, then determine how many units to sell to break even, and then finally profit. IMO, the costs would far exceed profit margins on such an item especially given the alternatives, FRS/GMRS/ amateur radio. If such an item exists, I would scoop up a set at a max price of $50 each. Any more than that, I'll pass onto licensed GMRS. <---Awesome.

This is why I mentioned use of something already existing (PCB from a MURS handheld), it would greatly reduce (though not entirely eliminate) the cost for a majority of those items.
This was an exceptionally common practice with CB base station radios. Nearly every one contained a PCB virtually identical to a mobile radio's, together with a 12V DC power unit so it could run directly off household AC power.

The (very nice) Cobra 2000-GTL base station unit contained the PCB of a 148-GTL mobile unit
Same for the President (Uniden) Madison base, it used a President (Uniden) Grant PCB
Realistic TRC-458 & 457 Navajo base units, a TRC-449 PCB
and so on.

Turning a MURS handheld into a mobile unit would be right along those same lines. If the unit proves popular, then I'm sure there could be more incentive to design a mobile unit from the ground-up (one possibly with better receiver performance, more features, etc.).

But indeed more people do need to realize MURS is even here first... For whatever reason people haven't been latching onto it's promise of 5-10 mile range of crystal-clear FM communication w/o any need for licenses. I'm sure the fact no mobile units exist is among those reasons.

 

[k9lestat]

http://www.buytwowayradios.com/products/midland/midland-MXT105.aspx


I think ya'll might be happier with something like this. take a look, who knows? Tell that 1 guy to get over it.

The commspepper on YouTube has a few videos on that radio

Sent from my Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F using Tapatalk

 

[1Louder]

http://www.buytwowayradios.com/products/midland/midland-MXT105.aspx


I think ya'll might be happier with something like this. take a look, who knows? Tell that 1 guy to get over it.

I think those things sounds pretty cool. I also think it would be difficult to get folks to move away from CB to something like this. In the end just get your Ham license. It isn't that hard.

If you are familiar with these MXT radios how easy is it to use them in conjunction with the cheap Motorola handhelds?

 

[DaveInDenver]

I think those things sounds pretty cool. I also think it would be difficult to get folks to move away from CB to something like this. In the end just get your Ham license. It isn't that hard.

If you are familiar with these MXT radios how easy is it to use them in conjunction with the cheap Motorola handhelds?

Your second question dovetails with your first comment. Ham isn't difficult for me but I recognize it's not a super simple, universally channelized service. The MXT would be easy to use with a Motorola handheld because channel 1 is always channel 1 in GMRS. To me GMRS has most of the benefits of amateur radio with respect to OHV use (50W, FM, UHF, decent antennas, repeaters) without all the fluff that frustrates non-hams. I'm a ham and would be either way but I also realize that amateur radio is overkill 96% of the time. MURS would be an OK choice but 2W is pretty limiting. I doubt we're going to get everyone to move from ham radio at this point. After getting momentum to move from CB very few people are going to want to buy yet another round of radios.

 

[Martinjmpr]

But indeed more people do need to realize MURS is even here first... For whatever reason people haven't been latching onto it's promise of 5-10 mile range of crystal-clear FM communication w/o any need for licenses. I'm sure the fact no mobile units exist is among those reasons.

.
It's the catch-22 of two way radio. Nobody uses it because there aren't very many radios and there aren't many radios because nobody uses it. :sombrero:
.
It's like the old joke I heard on "Futurama" years ago (that took me a second to get): "Nobody drives in New York. There's too much traffic!"

 

[Crom]

4x4Junkie, I agree man, but look at the market place, Motorolla sells MURS handhelds for $200, The Dakota handhelds are $180. Who the hell would pay for that?!? Especially given the alternatives?

I think we arel never gonna see a MURS type-accepted radio in mobile platform, unless the chinese do it. :stirthepot:

I think those things sounds pretty cool. I also think it would be difficult to get folks to move away from CB to something like this. In the end just get your Ham license. It isn't that hard.

If you are familiar with these MXT radios how easy is it to use them in conjunction with the cheap Motorola handhelds?

Depends on where you live maybe. CB is for the dinosaurs. Nobody I run with uses one, and I wouldn't to put that on my truck if you paid me. :sombrero: :ylsmoke:

VHF radios have really taken off in SoCal. It seems to me that the trend is either licensed ham, or unlicensed "race" radios programmed for business itinerant freqs, which is wrong, and not cool IMO, but they are out there, and that's a fact.

Your second question dovetails with your first comment. Ham isn't difficult for me but I recognize it's not a super simple, universally channelized service. The MXT would be easy to use with a Motorola handheld because channel 1 is always channel 1 in GMRS. To me GMRS has most of the benefits of amateur radio with respect to OHV use (50W, FM, UHF, decent antennas, repeaters) without all the fluff that frustrates non-hams. I'm a ham and would be either way but I also realize that amateur radio is overkill 96% of the time. MURS would be an OK choice but 2W is pretty limiting. I doubt we're going to get everyone to move from ham radio at this point. After getting momentum to move from CB very few people are going to want to buy yet another round of radios.

Very much agree. GMRS is a great middle ground, I like it very much.
I will add that even though 2W seems weak, In the past I've used 2W to talk to mountain top repeaters 40 miles away, full quieting. Used a baofeng, 20' pole and mobile antenna with base station adapter. :chef:

.
It's the catch-22 of two way radio. Nobody uses it because there aren't very many radios and there aren't many radios because nobody uses it. :sombrero:
.
It's like the old joke I heard on "Futurama" years ago (that took me a second to get): "Nobody drives in New York. There's too much traffic!"

Yeup.

I think the solution to all this mess is to get licensed for ham/GMRS and have a dual band V/UHF radio, with some resistors that fell out, dial it in accordingly to each service you use. :Wow1: I kid! I kid!

But seriously, nobody is going to know unless you mouth off about it.

 

[DaveInDenver]

I will add that even though 2W seems weak, In the past I've used 2W to talk to mountain top repeaters 40 miles away, full quieting. Used a baofeng, 20' pole and mobile antenna with base station adapter.

Yeah, that was an unfair statement, 2W can be alright. I've used 5W to make contacts in the 500+ mile range. This is on 40m and 20m using a 44' doublet on SSB, primarily NVIS. So it can be done. But with VHF propagation being what it is 2W is going to let you make reliable contacts within a few miles but is going to attenuate quickly. And that's the point. It's why FRS is 0.5W and CB is 4W ERP, specifically so that you don't make much noise beyond the group right around you. GMRS is 50W because it requires a bit more licensing and 70cm has even less chance of skip or tropospheric ducting and has a higher rate of attenuation from vegetation. Also, in your repeater example the repeater solves the line of sight issue and is doing a lot of heavy lifting with a highly efficient antenna and sensitive receiver. I could point that I make 100 mile contacts with a 5W handheld during Summits On The Air, but planting yourself at 13,000' on a tree-less peak with a yagi isn't really playing fair.

 

[Crom]

Great points, good discussion Dave.

I was digging around and I found that back in 2014, an amateur petitioned the FCC to change rule making so that licensed amateurs that also held GMRS licenses, could use part 97 devices that complied with technical specs of GRMS to be used on GMRS channels. FCC said no.

Essentially because An exception to Section 95.129 would allow for the proliferation of home-built,non-standardized transmitters in the GMRS, they further stated that, "there would be no practicable way for the Commission to monitor and enforce regulatory compliance for these devices."

At least someone asked! :snorkel:

What would be really great is is MURS regulations were updated to increase power to something like 5W, increase the channels to 15 or 20. Keep it licensed by rule. That would make it a real contender for full replacement for 11m CB I think.

If I have time, I'll research to see if any rules are pending for MURS, etc.

What's nice is that anybody can petition for changes, although politics can muddy the timeline up it seems judging by the GMRS petition from 2010 that is still pending.

 

[DaveInDenver]

I think this discussion is interesting, the desire for a mobile MURS anyway. I say that because a common complaint about 11m CB is that it's not practical to make handhelds worth a darn due to antenna length limitations.

 

[4x4junkie]

.
It's the catch-22 of two way radio. Nobody uses it because there aren't very many radios and there aren't many radios because nobody uses it. :sombrero:
.
It's like the old joke I heard on "Futurama" years ago (that took me a second to get): "Nobody drives in New York. There's too much traffic!"

Very true.
I guess I'm just trying to figure out why GMRS and/or ham come up so often before MURS as a replacement for 11m CB (an unlicensed (license-by-rule) short range personal radio service)... Almost never is it mentioned, even with the caveat you'd need to repurpose a handheld as a mobile unit to use it (or go the non-type-accepted radio route).

4x4Junkie, I agree man, but look at the market place, Motorolla sells MURS handhelds for $200, The Dakota handhelds are $180. Who the hell would pay for that?!? Especially given the alternatives?

I think we arel never gonna see a MURS type-accepted radio in mobile platform, unless the chinese do it. :stirthepot:

Not sure where you saw that... The Dakota Alert M538-HT is $84.99 at this moment on Amazon (which is up a bit from what I recall them being, around $55), but certainly not $180).
https://www.amazon.com/Dakota-Alert-Wireless-Handheld-M538-HT/dp/B013XQMPSM

Motorola has always been expensive, but I'm sure if they got popular, they'd come down much like their FRS offerings did.

Of course even $55 for a M538-HT is expensive when you consider you can get a Baofeng that could do both MURS and FRS, along with ham & GMRS too if so desired (yes, not legally) for as little as half that. If it's popularity were to catch on, I could see a MURS radio market evolve into something not too unlike the current CB market where you can spend as little as $35 on a radio, or as much as $350 on a radio.

What would be really great is is MURS regulations were updated to increase power to something like 5W, increase the channels to 15 or 20. Keep it licensed by rule. That would make it a real contender for full replacement for 11m CB I think.

Increasing the # of channels would not be difficult to do now too, now that the FCC chased virtually all of the business (part-90) users off the surrounding spectrum with their narrowbanding mandate of 2012 (them not wanting to re-invest in new radio gear or pay to have numerous pieces of their current gear readjusted for it)... That whole part of the band is quite deserted now, even here in very populous so. California. They could easily expand to 25 contiguous channels from 151.625 - 151.985 (plus the two channels up on 154 MHz), while still having the grandfathering thing in place for the very few part-90 users that might still be present. One thing I would hope they do do though if they did do that: designate the new channels voice-only, as I occasionally have come across that digital blipping crap out there which can get rather annoying (forcing me to run a 100Hz PL tone because of it). Voice-only channels would make use of open squelch a little easier.

 

[Crom]

Very true.
I guess I'm just trying to figure out why GMRS and/or ham come up so often before MURS as a replacement for 11m CB (an unlicensed (license-by-rule) short range personal radio service)... Almost never is it mentioned, even with the caveat you'd need to repurpose a handheld as a mobile unit to use it (or go the non-type-accepted radio route).




Not sure where you saw that... The Dakota Alert M538-HT is $84.99 at this moment on Amazon (which is up a bit from what I recall them being, around $55), but certainly not $180).
https://www.amazon.com/Dakota-Alert-Wireless-Handheld-M538-HT/dp/B013XQMPSM

Motorola has always been expensive, but I'm sure if they got popular, they'd come down much like their FRS offerings did.

Of course even $55 for a M538-HT is expensive when you consider you can get a Baofeng that could do both MURS and FRS, along with ham & GMRS too if so desired (yes, not legally) for as little as half that. If it's popularity were to catch on, I could see a MURS radio market evolve into something not too unlike the current CB market where you can spend as little as $35 on a radio, or as much as $350 on a radio.




Increasing the # of channels would not be difficult to do now too, now that the FCC chased virtually all of the business (part-90) users off the surrounding spectrum with their narrowbanding mandate of 2012 (them not wanting to re-invest in new radio gear or pay to have numerous pieces of their current gear readjusted for it)... That whole part of the band is quite deserted now, even here in very populous so. California. They could easily expand to 25 contiguous channels from 151.625 - 151.985 (plus the two channels up on 154 MHz), while still having the grandfathering thing in place for the very few part-90 users that might still be present. One thing I would hope they do do though if they did do that: designate the new channels voice-only, as I occasionally have come across that digital blipping crap out there which can get rather annoying (forcing me to run a 100Hz PL tone because of it). Voice-only channels would make use of open squelch a little easier.

Thanks! Great information in your post. Yeah the Dakota thing was info from a quick and dirty Internet search. This vendor, probably looking to rip people at $180 for the Dakota.

So i'm really liking your commentary on expanding MURS.

I'm having to relearn how to navigate the FCC ECFS, which is really messy! I'm not confident in my search skills yet but my prelimary search results didn't return anything timely regarding MURS petitions, I'll keep trying as time permits!

I know a ton of folks put their hope on FCC changing GMRS to license by rule, that's the 2010 petition that's been pending. I did a quick check on that.

It turns out that last year both Midland, and Garmin presented their cases on changes before with Wireless Telecommunications Bureau staff.

Through their attorneys the summarized thier presentations in these filings below. Both of which are interesting, I think you'd find them interesting as well.

Garmin's case
Midland's case
Uniden's case
Motorola's case

In a nutshell, they both say that it would be a mistake to regulate GMRS to 2W power.
Midland argues for creating radios that can work on more than one radio service.
Uniden want's 2W, across all channels non removable antennas, license by rule, so FRS on steroids, no GMRS.

There are 310 filings to sort through!

 

[4x4junkie]

Yeah I've been hearing about the license-by-rule petitions for GMRS as well. I recall a discussion somewhere (Radio Reference maybe?) that the use of repeaters would go by the wayside if that happens. There are a LOT of repeaters currently up on the band (around my area I hear repeaters on top of repeaters causing interference to each other being crammed into a space of only 8 channels), I don't think these folks would be happy to be told they have to take their repeaters down (and of course it would also eliminate a perk of GMRS as an alternative to ham).

MURS on the other hand is already license-by-rule. All someone needs is to do is start making more units available for it.

I guess it'll be interesting to see what (if anything) becomes of it.

 

[Tom7020]

[QUOTE = "trabkabab, bài đăng: 2234500, thành viên: 92954"]
Tôi đã tìm kiếm xung quanh để xem liệu có bất kỳ bộ thu phát MURS di động nào là thiết bị được phê duyệt Phần 95J hay không nhưng tôi không thể tìm thấy bất kỳ thiết bị nào. Có, tôi có lẽ nên lấy bằng nghiệp dư nhưng hiện tại tôi không thấy mình và các tài xế khác trong đoàn đi theo tuyến đường đó.

Một nhóm chúng tôi đang đến Utah và một người lái xe nhất quyết sử dụng MURS vì anh ta có thể sử dụng bộ thu phát HAM của mình để truy cập các kênh MURS. Tôi đoán đây là một số loại vi phạm nhưng anh ta không đặc biệt quan tâm.

Tôi muốn tuân thủ nhưng tôi cũng muốn sử dụng bộ thu phát MURS phù hợp với khả năng kết nối với một ăng-ten được gắn bên ngoài.

Bất kỳ ý tưởng?


Gửi từ một củ khoai tây bằng Tapatalk
[/TRÍCH DẪN]
Theo FCC, MURS (Multi-Use Radio Service) là một dữ liệu dịch vụ hoặc liên lạc giữa hai chiều, khoảng cách ngắn, tư nhân mà dân thường có thể sử dụng. Yếu tố chủ điều này được sử dụng cho các cá nhân hoạt động hoặc kinh doanh. MURS các nguồn không được kết nối hợp pháp với cộng đồng mạng điện thoại.
Nó không được sử dụng cho các hoạt động tại cửa hàng và giao nhận. Hơn nữa, không được phép sử dụng bộ vô tuyến lặp lại. MURS sử dụng các kênh trong VHF phổ, công cụ có thể là từ 151 đến 154 MHz.
Loại này thường được sử dụng để liên lạc hai chiều, cự ly ngắn. Nó thường sử dụng các thiết bị cầm tay hoạt động gần giống như máy tọa đàm.