Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile My Website Previous Previous Next Next
Mark Atwood
Dear Lazyweb: Why don't they make cellphones also do FRS/GMRS?
So maybe it adds another dollar to the radio, big deal. They keep adding more and more expensive fragile shit to cellphones anyway...

Tags: , , ,
Current Location: Home, Capitol Hill, Seattle WA
Current Mood: curious curious

9 comments or Leave a comment
From: volta Date: July 11th, 2007 02:36 am (UTC) (Link)
My guess: the phone companies want to make sure all of your calls go through their network, so they can bill you for them.
mauser From: mauser Date: July 11th, 2007 03:48 am (UTC) (Link)
Beat me to it. The phone manufacturers cater to the networks.
osewalrus From: osewalrus Date: July 16th, 2007 01:10 am (UTC) (Link)
It's worse than that. The phone networks control what devces can and cannot attach to their networks. The phone companies dictate to the carriers what features are permitted, even when the equipment manufacturers would rather do something else.
trebor1415 From: trebor1415 Date: July 11th, 2007 03:59 am (UTC) (Link)
The FCC regs don't allow FRS/GMRS radios to be part of a combined system. Heck, technically the combo FRS/GMRS are supposed to be two different radios and you are supposed to have a FCC license to use the GMRS freqs.
fallenpegasus From: fallenpegasus Date: July 11th, 2007 02:23 pm (UTC) (Link)
What a fucking stupid rule.

osewalrus From: osewalrus Date: July 16th, 2007 01:16 am (UTC) (Link)
Yes, because FRS is "licensed by rule" under Section 307(e) of the Telecom Act whereas GMRS is, in theory, a regular licensed service requiring an individual license under Section 303.

I know of no reason why a manufacturer that wanted to provide a dual-use unit could not apply for permission to construct a dual-use unit. You can find the FCC's general info page on FRS here: http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=family

FRS would not be a bad way to replicate the Nextel "push to talk" feature, but it isn't secure in the same way. Could be with encryption.
tugrik From: tugrik Date: July 11th, 2007 09:21 am (UTC) (Link)
Yeah, what he said. To have more than one radio of that diverse a frequency range requires a minimum 20cm distance between radiators (antennas). A little hard to do in a celphone. :) Even if that requirement wasn't there, the internal RF handling would be a shielding nightmare.
fallenpegasus From: fallenpegasus Date: July 11th, 2007 02:25 pm (UTC) (Link)
And to repeat my comment, what a fucking stupid rule.

But then, it's the FCC, which I believe should be broken apart, it's tech side handed to ANSI, and the only "regulartory" function being a merely a "register of deeds".
osewalrus From: osewalrus Date: July 16th, 2007 01:09 am (UTC) (Link)
1) Would need to check the interference issues. Can't remember offhand the band for FRS, but there may be some co-channel interference possibility.

2) It would add weight and suck battery power.

3) Real reason=because it would mess up their business model. That's why most features that could go into cell phones don't go into cell phones.

Came here via Zev_Sero
9 comments or Leave a comment