If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Using family radios or walkie talkies in lieu of baby monitors
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Using family radios or walkie talkies in lieu of baby monitors
"John L. Wilkerson Jr." wrote in message 2...
(Tripp Knightly) wrote in om: You're being overly alarmist, but I think etiquette died not long after FRS hit the mainstream at Walmart. Tell my neighbors' kids who insist on conducting their Eminemesque banter on 4-20, for example. So what the hell... you figure then you may as well also join the degenerates out there who care nothing for etiquette, as well as the regulations. Thanks for helping to contribute to the corruption of FRS. And the alarmism continues. My OP is lost from this thread, but I don't even own a radio (yet) and am not even sure I'm going to get one (at least for this purpose). Besides, in practice it would behoove me to use channel codes w/ minimal to no traffic in my neighborhood so that I don't hear garbage on my own monitor, which marginalizes the etiquette concern. Ultimately, I'd blame the FCC's management of spectrum... but that's akin to shaking one's fist at the moon. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Using family radios or walkie talkies in lieu of baby monitors
In alt.radio.family Tripp Knightly wrote:
Phil Stripling wrote in message ... (Tripp Knightly) writes: I recently purch'd 2 diff sets of baby monitors (both 49 & 900 Mhz). Both were susceptible more than I liked to interference from, ie, neighbor's babies (god bless 'em) and cordless phones. Seems to me a better route to go might be to use family radios / walkie talkies. Tripp, hon -- why are you going to harrass other FRS users with _your_ interference from _your_ babies? Believe it or not, FRS radios are subject to rules; kindly drop by http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...7cfr95_00.html and take a look at the set of rules beginning at 95.191. I would direct your attention, though, to 95.193(a): You may use the FRS unit to transmit one-way communications only to establish communications with another person, send an emergency message, provide traveler assistance, make a voice page, or to conduct a brief test. -- Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@ http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily. Phil, baby (sic) -- One person's harrassment is always another's communication. Yeah, I know they're subject to rules (not withstanding their enforcement or lack thereof). But It almost seems to me that what you cite supports my application of FRS as fair use. Not to get litigious, but absent seeing legal rulings to the contrary, using VOX functionality potentially qualifies on at least 2 of 5 of those reasons. (I'm sure your emminently qualified to do so, but don't waste your time looking them up!) There are good reasons for the current regulations for FRS. Notice that FRS units do not even have the function that you need to do what you what to do(VOX is intended primilarly for use with a hands-free headset)-it works poorly otherwise in most situations. First of all-FRS has way too much range for your purposes, and the radio will transmit ALL local sounds, including ones that you might not want to be broadcast for a mile or more in all directions-basically, you're BUGGING your own house! Of course, you would be tying up a FRS channel nearly non-stop for long periods of time(the channels are suposed to be SHARED). Doing the above is downright RUDE, as well as a violation of FCC regulations. Also, CTCSS(sub-codes) are NOT channels-they are just a selective speaker muting system(squelch)-so you won't hear other users on the channel, BUT if more than 1 user is transmitting at the same time, both users will be interfered with(even though one or both might not know it, except they don't hear some of what they should hear). IOW, the sub-codes are really are quiet codes. Besides, if they're used for 2-way, than your citation becomes completely irrelevant (imagine the parent that coos back, for example). Indeed, you conveniently left out the first sentence of 95.193(a) which addresses 2-way: A infant crying or cooing is sort of stretching the ides of voice communications-as generally voice communications presuppose that a actual lanuage be used. The parent that coos back is nonsense-the infant's unit will be randomly transmitting, so the infant will not hear the parent much of the time(an FRS radio is NOT a full-duplex device, so when it's transmitting, it is not receiving, and vice-versa). What you are descriving is NOT 2-way communications, but 2 one way communications, and again-this is NOT within the FRS regulations. "You may use an FRS unit to conduct two-way voice communications with another person." See above. But if nothing else, you've certainly validated that free legal advice is Correct, but common sense should tell you that non-stop communications in a SHARED communications service is selfish and rude!! -TK Oh, BTW, most FRS gear probably will not last long used the way you want you to use it-the transmitters are generally designed for a ICAS duty cycle(5% transmitting, 5% receiving, 90% standby), so the radio will probably overheat and fail after a while. MK |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Using family radios or walkie talkies in lieu of baby monitors
Crap! I Have to agree with Stewart re the wired intercom. CRAP CRAP CRAP!
Actually personbally I don't like the idea of subjecting infants to R.F. even in small doses.... Where did I put my tinfoil hat? Dan "stewart" wrote in message om... (Tripp Knightly) wrote in message om... wrote in message v.net... Oh, BTW, most FRS gear probably will not last long used the way you want you to use it-the transmitters are generally designed for a ICAS duty cycle(5% transmitting, 5% receiving, 90% standby), so the radio will probably overheat and fail after a while. MK Thanks. That's a thoughtful informative and sensible response. Too bad it is wrong. You shouldn't use an FRS radio as a broadcast device, but this ISN'T the reason why you shouldn't. It has more to do with common sense and being a good citizen/neighbor, and sharing, that kind of thing. If you want to be a dick, just buy a FRS "base station" and put a rock on the transmitter button - I can assure you it isn't going to "overheat" putting out that WHOPPING 500mW (drill some extra cooling holes in the case, if you are THAT worried about it)... but then, hopefully, some radio-savvy neighbor will DF you and turn you into the FCC. Dude - have you ever considered running a fricken' wired intercom between the baby's and your room... I remember when houses used to come wired with Intercoms... ah, those were the days. - Stewart http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Using family radios or walkie talkies in lieu of baby monitors
(Tripp Knightly) wrote in message . com...
Richard G Amirault wrote in message ... All the FRS radios I am aware of cannot be used this way (plus it would be against the regulations) because they have a time-out feature to limit transmissions. Well, I guess I can see how the always-on broadcast feature could create a tragedy of commons if lots of people used them that way. An interesting alternative might be to have a remote mic'ing where the receiver triggers a (15 sec? 30 sec?) transmission on the unit you want to transmit. Not that regulations don't have something to say about that as well... Baloney. This is verboten for at least two reasons: 1) You must monitor the frequency for activity before transmitting. 2) You can't hook up external apparatus on FRS. - Stewart http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Using family radios or walkie talkies in lieu of baby monitors
wrote in message v.net...
In alt.radio.family Tripp Knightly wrote: Phil Stripling wrote in message ... (Tripp Knightly) writes: I recently purch'd 2 diff sets of baby monitors (both 49 & 900 Mhz). Both were susceptible more than I liked to interference from, ie, neighbor's babies (god bless 'em) and cordless phones. Seems to me a better route to go might be to use family radios / walkie talkies. Tripp, hon -- why are you going to harrass other FRS users with _your_ interference from _your_ babies? Believe it or not, FRS radios are subject to rules; kindly drop by http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...7cfr95_00.html and take a look at the set of rules beginning at 95.191. I would direct your attention, though, to 95.193(a): You may use the FRS unit to transmit one-way communications only to establish communications with another person, send an emergency message, provide traveler assistance, make a voice page, or to conduct a brief test. -- Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@ http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily. Phil, baby (sic) -- One person's harrassment is always another's communication. Yeah, I know they're subject to rules (not withstanding their enforcement or lack thereof). But It almost seems to me that what you cite supports my application of FRS as fair use. Not to get litigious, but absent seeing legal rulings to the contrary, using VOX functionality potentially qualifies on at least 2 of 5 of those reasons. (I'm sure your emminently qualified to do so, but don't waste your time looking them up!) There are good reasons for the current regulations for FRS. Notice that FRS units do not even have the function that you need to do what you what to do(VOX is intended primilarly for use with a hands-free headset)-it works poorly otherwise in most situations. First of all-FRS has way too much range for your purposes, and the radio will transmit ALL local sounds, including ones that you might not want to be broadcast for a mile or more in all directions-basically, you're BUGGING your own house! Of course, you would be tying up a FRS channel nearly non-stop for long periods of time(the channels are suposed to be SHARED). Doing the above is downright RUDE, as well as a violation of FCC regulations. Also, CTCSS(sub-codes) are NOT channels-they are just a selective speaker muting system(squelch)-so you won't hear other users on the channel, BUT if more than 1 user is transmitting at the same time, both users will be interfered with(even though one or both might not know it, except they don't hear some of what they should hear). IOW, the sub-codes are really are quiet codes. Besides, if they're used for 2-way, than your citation becomes completely irrelevant (imagine the parent that coos back, for example). Indeed, you conveniently left out the first sentence of 95.193(a) which addresses 2-way: A infant crying or cooing is sort of stretching the ides of voice communications-as generally voice communications presuppose that a actual lanuage be used. The parent that coos back is nonsense-the infant's unit will be randomly transmitting, so the infant will not hear the parent much of the time(an FRS radio is NOT a full-duplex device, so when it's transmitting, it is not receiving, and vice-versa). What you are descriving is NOT 2-way communications, but 2 one way communications, and again-this is NOT within the FRS regulations. "You may use an FRS unit to conduct two-way voice communications with another person." See above. But if nothing else, you've certainly validated that free legal advice is Correct, but common sense should tell you that non-stop communications in a SHARED communications service is selfish and rude!! -TK Oh, BTW, most FRS gear probably will not last long used the way you want you to use it-the transmitters are generally designed for a ICAS duty cycle(5% transmitting, 5% receiving, 90% standby), so the radio will probably overheat and fail after a while. MK Thanks. That's a thoughtful informative and sensible response. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Using family radios or walkie talkies in lieu of baby monitors
(Tripp Knightly) wrote in message om...
wrote in message v.net... Oh, BTW, most FRS gear probably will not last long used the way you want you to use it-the transmitters are generally designed for a ICAS duty cycle(5% transmitting, 5% receiving, 90% standby), so the radio will probably overheat and fail after a while. MK Thanks. That's a thoughtful informative and sensible response. Too bad it is wrong. You shouldn't use an FRS radio as a broadcast device, but this ISN'T the reason why you shouldn't. It has more to do with common sense and being a good citizen/neighbor, and sharing, that kind of thing. If you want to be a dick, just buy a FRS "base station" and put a rock on the transmitter button - I can assure you it isn't going to "overheat" putting out that WHOPPING 500mW (drill some extra cooling holes in the case, if you are THAT worried about it)... but then, hopefully, some radio-savvy neighbor will DF you and turn you into the FCC. Dude - have you ever considered running a fricken' wired intercom between the baby's and your room... I remember when houses used to come wired with Intercoms... ah, those were the days. - Stewart http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Using family radios or walkie talkies in lieu of baby monitors
On 15 Sep 2003 18:20:22 -0700, (stewart) wrote:
Dude - have you ever considered running a fricken' wired intercom between the baby's and your room... I remember when houses used to come wired with Intercoms... ah, those were the days. - Stewart http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN How about voice over internet? Mike |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Using family radios or walkie talkies in lieu of baby monitors
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:10:17 -0400, "Daniel Martin"
wrote: Crap! I Have to agree with Stewart re the wired intercom. CRAP CRAP CRAP! Actually personbally I don't like the idea of subjecting infants to R.F. even in small doses.... Where did I put my tinfoil hat? Dan http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html Mike |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Most families *at risk* w CPS' assessment tools broad, vague | Kane | General | 13 | February 20th 04 06:02 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Prenatal Testing - Overview and Personal Stories | [email protected] | Pregnancy | 0 | December 15th 03 09:43 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on the Pregnancy AFP Screen and the Triple Screen | [email protected] | Pregnancy | 0 | December 15th 03 09:42 AM |