AA wrote:

The claimed range of these radios (FRS) is on the order of 2 miles. The
manufs mention terrain and weather as limitations.
How do they do in a wooded (flat) environment?

Heh....I LOVE those claims! Two miles...in a vacuum and direct LOS (line of
sight)....yup. Normal terrain? 1/2 mile to 1 mile for the typical FRS units.
The GMRS units will do better, as they're higher power out....but the licence
is $75 in the US...not sure what the deal is in Canada.

MURS (if legal in Ca.) is another good choice....if you can find the units.
FRS units are ubiquitious....MURS less so. The difference is frequency...MURS
is in the 155 mhz range, FRS is in the 462 mhz range. MURS also has no licence
requirements here, IIRC. They do well LOS and better than FRS (in my opinion)
non-LOS. I picked up a set of cheapie RatShak MURS mobiles and have had as
much as 10 mi. between them with decent reception. (external antenni) Don't
know how MURS is handled in Canada, do check with the local authorities.

Cheers;
A



Thanks, I've never heard of MURS. I'll look into it. If I read the tea
leaves correctly, GMRS will be usable w/o a licence in Canada by the
fall. Might be worth waiting until then.

Cheers,
Alan

--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Alan Browne ) writes:
AA wrote:

The claimed range of these radios (FRS) is on the order of 2 miles. The
manufs mention terrain and weather as limitations.
How do they do in a wooded (flat) environment?

Heh....I LOVE those claims! Two miles...in a vacuum and direct LOS (line of
sight)....yup. Normal terrain? 1/2 mile to 1 mile for the typical FRS units.
The GMRS units will do better, as they're higher power out....but the licence
is $75 in the US...not sure what the deal is in Canada.

MURS (if legal in Ca.) is another good choice....if you can find the units.
FRS units are ubiquitious....MURS less so. The difference is frequency...MURS
is in the 155 mhz range, FRS is in the 462 mhz range. MURS also has no licence
requirements here, IIRC. They do well LOS and better than FRS (in my opinion)
non-LOS. I picked up a set of cheapie RatShak MURS mobiles and have had as
much as 10 mi. between them with decent reception. (external antenni) Don't
know how MURS is handled in Canada, do check with the local authorities.

Cheers;
A



Thanks, I've never heard of MURS. I'll look into it. If I read the tea
leaves correctly, GMRS will be usable w/o a licence in Canada by the
fall. Might be worth waiting until then.

Cheers,
Alan

But what tea leaves are you reading?

This sort of radio news is not the sort of thing we'd hear about in
the newspaper or on the local news. It might hit as such things become
legal, but I can't see much word about any impending rule change being
visible before the fact.

And after that, one has to judge the source of information. Tea leaves
aren't a good source. Even some guy saying somewhere that the rules might
change isn't a definitive source.

Now, if you actually go to the pertinent government site, then yes indeed
there does seem to be forthcoming rule changes to allow "GMRS" in Canada.
But that's not "tea leaves" or interpretation, it's an outright statement.

If you do a search on "GMRS canada" one site you hit is the Radio Amateurs
of Canada website, http://www.rac.ca They happen to have a page about
FRS in Canada, http://www.rac.ca/frs Now that page mentions GMRS and
MURS, but states they are not legal in Canada.

But there's a link to the Industries Canada website,
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca and if you go there and use "GMRS" for
a search, you get this page:
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../sf08144e.html
which is a policy paper on the government's intention to allow GMRS.
I've only looked at the synopsis, the whole paper is in pdf, but note
that at the very least, there will be a changeover period because
others are using that frequency range at the moment.

The Gazette notice about this, from March, suggesting it could come as
early as September 2004:
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../sf08145e.html

So one does not tea leaves, which also have a tendency to be wrong anyway.

Michael VE2BVW

Michael Black wrote:


So one does not tea leaves, which also have a tendency to be wrong anyway.


While I'm sure you thought your reply was cynically amusing, please be
assured that you are quite alone in that thought. The "tea leaves" in
question are those from the Industry Canada site. Whether that
intention comes to pass or not is another matter.


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Alan Browne ) writes:
Michael Black wrote:


So one does not tea leaves, which also have a tendency to be wrong anyway.


While I'm sure you thought your reply was cynically amusing, please be
assured that you are quite alone in that thought. The "tea leaves" in
question are those from the Industry Canada site. Whether that
intention comes to pass or not is another matter.

No, your tea leaves comment suggested something terribly vague. It
implies that you are reading some vague indicator.

If your comment that it might change was based on seeing something
on the Industries Canada site, then it's not nearly that vague, and
it's not reading tea leaves. It's equivalent to reading your local
newspaper and seeing something definite.

You used the "tea leave" line, suggesting that you were indeed
getting some rumor or interpreting something you'd seen somewhere.
It was precisely that vagueness that got me to post, suggesting
that if it was "tea leaves" you were reading then you might be misled.
That led me to search for any concrete information, which got
me to the Industries Canada site. If you'd simply cut out the
"cuteness" and simply said you'd find something indicating it was
or that it might be coming to Canada on the Industry Canada website,
even including the URL, then it wouldn't look like you were misreading
something.

Michael VE2BVW

Michael Black wrote:

Alan Browne ) writes:

Michael Black wrote:



So one does not tea leaves, which also have a tendency to be wrong anyway.


While I'm sure you thought your reply was cynically amusing, please be
assured that you are quite alone in that thought. The "tea leaves" in
question are those from the Industry Canada site. Whether that
intention comes to pass or not is another matter.


No, your tea leaves comment suggested something terribly vague. It

tedious reply snipped

YAWN.

Michael Black wrote:

Alan Browne ) writes:

Michael Black wrote:



So one does not tea leaves, which also have a tendency to be wrong anyway.


While I'm sure you thought your reply was cynically amusing, please be
assured that you are quite alone in that thought. The "tea leaves" in
question are those from the Industry Canada site. Whether that
intention comes to pass or not is another matter.


No, your tea leaves comment suggested something terribly vague. It

tedious reply snipped

YAWN.

Alan Browne ) writes:
Michael Black wrote:


So one does not tea leaves, which also have a tendency to be wrong anyway.


While I'm sure you thought your reply was cynically amusing, please be
assured that you are quite alone in that thought. The "tea leaves" in
question are those from the Industry Canada site. Whether that
intention comes to pass or not is another matter.

No, your tea leaves comment suggested something terribly vague. It
implies that you are reading some vague indicator.

If your comment that it might change was based on seeing something
on the Industries Canada site, then it's not nearly that vague, and
it's not reading tea leaves. It's equivalent to reading your local
newspaper and seeing something definite.

You used the "tea leave" line, suggesting that you were indeed
getting some rumor or interpreting something you'd seen somewhere.
It was precisely that vagueness that got me to post, suggesting
that if it was "tea leaves" you were reading then you might be misled.
That led me to search for any concrete information, which got
me to the Industries Canada site. If you'd simply cut out the
"cuteness" and simply said you'd find something indicating it was
or that it might be coming to Canada on the Industry Canada website,
even including the URL, then it wouldn't look like you were misreading
something.

Michael VE2BVW

Michael Black wrote:


So one does not tea leaves, which also have a tendency to be wrong anyway.


While I'm sure you thought your reply was cynically amusing, please be
assured that you are quite alone in that thought. The "tea leaves" in
question are those from the Industry Canada site. Whether that
intention comes to pass or not is another matter.


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Alan Browne ) writes:
AA wrote:

The claimed range of these radios (FRS) is on the order of 2 miles. The
manufs mention terrain and weather as limitations.
How do they do in a wooded (flat) environment?

Heh....I LOVE those claims! Two miles...in a vacuum and direct LOS (line of
sight)....yup. Normal terrain? 1/2 mile to 1 mile for the typical FRS units.
The GMRS units will do better, as they're higher power out....but the licence
is $75 in the US...not sure what the deal is in Canada.

MURS (if legal in Ca.) is another good choice....if you can find the units.
FRS units are ubiquitious....MURS less so. The difference is frequency...MURS
is in the 155 mhz range, FRS is in the 462 mhz range. MURS also has no licence
requirements here, IIRC. They do well LOS and better than FRS (in my opinion)
non-LOS. I picked up a set of cheapie RatShak MURS mobiles and have had as
much as 10 mi. between them with decent reception. (external antenni) Don't
know how MURS is handled in Canada, do check with the local authorities.

Cheers;
A



Thanks, I've never heard of MURS. I'll look into it. If I read the tea
leaves correctly, GMRS will be usable w/o a licence in Canada by the
fall. Might be worth waiting until then.

Cheers,
Alan

But what tea leaves are you reading?

This sort of radio news is not the sort of thing we'd hear about in
the newspaper or on the local news. It might hit as such things become
legal, but I can't see much word about any impending rule change being
visible before the fact.

And after that, one has to judge the source of information. Tea leaves
aren't a good source. Even some guy saying somewhere that the rules might
change isn't a definitive source.

Now, if you actually go to the pertinent government site, then yes indeed
there does seem to be forthcoming rule changes to allow "GMRS" in Canada.
But that's not "tea leaves" or interpretation, it's an outright statement.

If you do a search on "GMRS canada" one site you hit is the Radio Amateurs
of Canada website, http://www.rac.ca They happen to have a page about
FRS in Canada, http://www.rac.ca/frs Now that page mentions GMRS and
MURS, but states they are not legal in Canada.

But there's a link to the Industries Canada website,
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca and if you go there and use "GMRS" for
a search, you get this page:
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../sf08144e.html
which is a policy paper on the government's intention to allow GMRS.
I've only looked at the synopsis, the whole paper is in pdf, but note
that at the very least, there will be a changeover period because
others are using that frequency range at the moment.

The Gazette notice about this, from March, suggesting it could come as
early as September 2004:
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../sf08145e.html

So one does not tea leaves, which also have a tendency to be wrong anyway.

Michael VE2BVW