http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/clearinghouse/cert.html

Part 1 of the training is oriented towards use of the Family Radio service for the simple fact that most CERT team members are not going to be licensed radio amateurs but still need to know how to use their FRS radios effectively for communications within their team. It includes a simple exercise using single channel, direct simplex communications in a free net, as is common during smaller Type IV incidents which don’t require a formal Incident Action Plan. Topics include operating charactertics and limitations of FRS radio, radio features and controls, use of standard procedural words and phonetics.

Part II of the training goes into more detail on operating procedures used in directed nets, resource tracking, maintain the radio log and message handling. Emphasis is on multiple-channel communications and the development of Communications Plans as used in Type III or more complex incidents. Additional topics discussed include the use of GMRS and Amateur repeaters as a way of tying CERT teams back to their Incident Command Post, Public Safety Answering Point, or Emertency Operations Center. Having your volunteer civilian communications auxiliary provide this training to Citizens Corps groups is a great way to encourage those who are interested in communications to become proficient and encourage them to become licensed. Licensed team members can function as the designated “Communications Operator” to relay resource requests, task completions, or changes in incident status back to the command post using either amateur or GMRS radio and repeaters.

The files available for download include Powerpoint presentations for elements 1 and 2, instructor guides, student handouts, example exercises and a radio forms pack.

Not true!
PL or DPL tones are subaudible and have no effect on the voice quality. ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE with a scanner or another radio that uses carrier squelch can hear you plain as day even tho you use PL/DPL.

Also, even tho GMRS radios can transmit more power, their tranmitted signals are subject to attenuation. Atmosperic, and folige attenuation. Atmospheric attenuation is loss of signal due to particles (air, dust, moisture). Folige attenuation is just that, leaves that physicly aproximate a wave length or an even division of a wave length (1/2, 1/4) of the transmitted freq will absorb the signal, thus weakening the received signal. For GMRS this is in the range of 3″-12″.

This is also true of CB class B, CB as we know it. With a much lower freq, the wave length is much longer, 100″-400″. Trees and buildings absord most of the ground wave signal of CB tranmissions. As well, CB are AM modulated and MURS is FM modulated. Most electrial interference is AM modulated. This effects the CB receiver but not the FM receiver.

High Band VHF freqs (100-300 mhz)have the advantage of wave lengths that are typicly longer then most foliage, yet shorter then most trees and buildings. There is virtually no atmospheric skip like on CB freqs and far less atmospheric attenualtion as on GMRS freqs. All this adds up to MURS haveing the best range per watt of transmitted power then any available frequency to the average person.

Hope this clears things up.

War Bird
Genral Amature license
FCC GROLE license with Radar endorsment

Great tip on running the radio/CB power wires directly to the battery. As far as the communication range of MURS vs. CB I agree that for the person who had the skill, time and desire to make the modifications you’ve listed to CB it could in fact function better than MURS, but for the average joe MURS will most likely function better “out of the box.”

I’d never heard of Single Sideband Modulation and will definitely have to look into that. I agree that anyone with the functionality to scan privacy codes / CTCSS has the potential of picking up on the signal which is why, as you’ve already mentioned, that unless you’re on an encrypted network, code phrases or pro words must be used for security.

Antenna size between MURS and CB is a “mission drives the gear” thing and if you have the ability to use a large antenna in a vehicle, then yes by all means do it, but for individually carried comms, a large antenna is a no go unless you have a foldable antenna like the MBITR.

You nailed the benefits of vehicle CB vs. vehicle MURS nicely.

Thanks again for taking the time to leave such a detailed comment,
Bryan

“CB communications can also be significantly degraded by noise from vehicle ignition systems”

Err, sure, if you install the radio poorly. But then again, this is not in any way limited to CB radios – any vehicle installed electronic device is going to suffer from the same electric noise if you install it poorly. Thus, I feel that is hardly a valid comparison.

A very basic rule whenever installing any two-way radio into a vehicle is to run the power wires straight to the battery – both the positive and negative wire. (Fuses on both wires, as close to the battery as possible, of course.) I think you’ll find that following that basic rule should take care of most electric noise from almost any vehicle. This is not CB specific but applies to ALL two-way radio installations, no matter what the frequency range used.

I also find your claim of a superior communication range from a technology that uses a higher frequency and lower power a bit difficult to believe. Just seems to fly against the rules of physics. (Lower frequencies have more range, stronger signals have more range.) This is of course assuming a level playing field, once more. Compare a good MURS radio to an incorrectly wired CB installation with a possibly untuned and probably way too short antenna and sure, the MURS might indeed seem superior.

Not sure about the law in US, but in most parts of Europe on CB frequencies Single Sideband modulation is legal to use – this can be a nifty thing for extending range, assuming the other end has the same functionality. If you synchronize gear with your “team”, ensuring compatibility, this should not be a problem. A lot of cheaper CB radios lack this feature making SSB less used, and scanning for SSB signals is a bit trickier than with AM or FM, so there you have your “security by obscurity” á la privacy codes too. ;) We do also have CB radios that have CTCSS. Personally though, I feel it is pretty much a gimmick as if you use something like CTCSS or DCS (often available in at least PMR446 radios here), all it takes is someone else with a radio with the same technology to crack your “encryption”. You can set radios to scan all “subchannels” (CTCSS etc. codes) after all… So the end result seems to me to be pretty much the same as not using them at all. Any and all confidential information MUST be kept off the air (or at least code phrases used) if you want it to remain confidential, there is no other way.

I also do not personally see skip as an inherently negative issue. Sure, sometimes it can get in the way – but other times it enables one to make *very* long range communications. In a situation where your immediate area seems chaotic, this might help one to get information from outside the affected area, for example. Radio weather conditions do play a role in the range of all HF radios, but like I said, in my opinion it can’t be considered as strictly a negative issue since the right conditions can give you more range than anything using higher frequencies has.

One benefit that higher frequencies do have over CB radios is that antenna sizes for good, useable antennas are much smaller. But I feel that the issue is more one of worrying about “style” than a real issue – lots of people don’t want to mount large antennas because that might “look funny”. (If you’re worried about stealth, there’s no law saying you can’t use more than one antenna, a magnetically mounted antenna, etc.) A quite large antenna can be mounted to most vehicles if you take the time to think about how to do it. And there is always the option of a simple home-made wire antenna for more range when stopped, or a fancier expedition antenna setup if you’re so inclined.

All this is not to say that MURS sounds like a bad idea. It certainly seems to compare favorably to other license free radio technologies listed in the article – I just somewhat disagree on the comparison to CB. And options can be a nice thing to have. :) If I were situated in the US, I would certainly be interested in MURS – but more as a person-to-person communication method. I’d still keep the CB as my primary vehicle-to-vehicle communication method. (This would keep my pool of possible receiving stations larger too – which could come in handy if you’re not deliberately trying to limit communication to “your team” alone. From mayday calls to asking for information from people with functioning Internet access, the situations where one might have to do so are numerous.)

I am also trying to point out that CB radios are not quite as bad as a lot of people seem to think. Things like poor range are more often due to poor choice of equipment (short antenna) and possibly poor installation (not tuning the antenna, not wiring the radio straight to the battery) than what people seem to be inclined to believe. (It’s all in the antenna, folks. Choose it well and mount it well.) They see one CB radio that gets poor range and think that they are all like that. Not so.

(Sorry for being so long-winded. Guess I got a little carried away…)