Using family radios or walkie talkies in lieu of baby monitors

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.

Key benefits would be:

a) Far larger channel / subchannel selection would alleviate
interference

b) Some radios have ways to embed codes to further squelch others'
transmissions

c) I can use the things as more than just baby monitors - more
practical

Downsides seem to be:

1) longer range might mean cleaner transmissions, but also you
sacrifice your privacy some

2) greater sensitivity means you're potentially open to more
interference absent having (c) above implemented

3) They don't have the light meters like baby monitors, though I think
there are some units out there w/ vibrate capability

My key questions a

- Has anybody used these radios & if so what are their experiences?

- Do these radios provide for full-time broadcast a la baby monitors
such that you can listen in? (My concern is that VOX / voice
activated capability may not let me hear all that I need to.)

Thanks for any / all input!

- TK

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.

Seems to me a better route to go might be to use family radios /
walkie talkies.

Key benefits would be:

a) Far larger channel / subchannel selection would alleviate
interference


Subtones don't create more "channels".


b) Some radios have ways to embed codes to further squelch others'
transmissions


Subtones don't prevent interference.


c) I can use the things as more than just baby monitors - more
practical


Why?


Downsides seem to be:

1) longer range might mean cleaner transmissions, but also you
sacrifice your privacy some


Baby monitors can be great fun in apartment complexes. They allow you to know
your neighbors better then with just their cordless phones.


2) greater sensitivity means you're potentially open to more
interference absent having (c) above implemented


Receiver or microphone sensitivity?


3) They don't have the light meters like baby monitors, though I think
there are some units out there w/ vibrate capability


?????????????


My key questions a

- Has anybody used these radios & if so what are their experiences?


I use my FRS radios.


- Do these radios provide for full-time broadcast a la baby monitors
such that you can listen in? (My concern is that VOX / voice
activated capability may not let me hear all that I need to.)


I have used one as a crossband repeater for ham receive only.

(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.

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...

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!)

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:

"You may use an FRS unit to conduct two-way voice communications
with another person."

But if nothing else, you've certainly validated that free legal advice
is

-TK

On 12 Sep 2003 19:41:21 -0700, (Tripp
Knightly) wrote:
....
Besides, if they're used for 2-way, than your citation becomes
completely irrelevant (imagine the parent that coos back, for
example)...

Imagine the vocabulary the child will learn when the neighborhood kids
take note of the system.

Indeed, you conveniently left out the first sentence of
95.193(a) which addresses 2-way:

"You may use an FRS unit to conduct two-way voice communications
with another person."

I believe Phil assumed you knew that FRS is intended to be used as a
two way voice service between humans.

But if nothing else, you've certainly validated that free legal advice
is

Seems more like you are trying to justify an action that doesn't sit
very high on the ladder of radio etiquette. But then I am sure the
child will monitor the frequency before gurgling or crying to insure
that he/she does not interfere with an ongoing exchange.

Mike

(Tripp Knightly) writes:

It almost seems to me that what you
cite supports my application of FRS as fair use.

"Almost" and 5 bucks will get you a cup of coffee. Go for it, hon.

--
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.

(Tripp Knightly) wrote in message . com...
- Do these radios provide for full-time broadcast a la baby monitors

NO!

(My concern is that VOX / voice
activated capability may not let me hear all that I need to.)

Too bad - this service is not designed for broadcast applications...
the 49Mhz and 900Mhz services you mentioned are.

I would guess that the reason baby monitor products don't have CTCSS
codes is that there are too many idiots and lawyers out there who
would sue the radio companies if anything happened to any kid being
monitored by one of those products - claiming they couldn't hear their
baby because they didn't understand how CTCSS worked. Blame it on our
litigation-crazy society.

Thanks for any / all input!

You're welcome!

- TK

- Stewart
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN

G. M. Alf wrote in message . ..
On 12 Sep 2003 19:41:21 -0700, (Tripp
Knightly) wrote:
...
Besides, if they're used for 2-way, than your citation becomes
completely irrelevant (imagine the parent that coos back, for
example)...

Imagine the vocabulary the child will learn when the neighborhood kids
take note of the system.

Indeed, you conveniently left out the first sentence of
95.193(a) which addresses 2-way:

"You may use an FRS unit to conduct two-way voice communications
with another person."

I believe Phil assumed you knew that FRS is intended to be used as a
two way voice service between humans.

But if nothing else, you've certainly validated that free legal advice
is

Seems more like you are trying to justify an action that doesn't sit
very high on the ladder of radio etiquette. But then I am sure the
child will monitor the frequency before gurgling or crying to insure
that he/she does not interfere with an ongoing exchange.

Mike

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.