Leaderboard

All good points with regard to best practices and grounding per NEC. I'm not arguing with that. I'm saying that 40' mast grounded according NEC does not raise the chances of being hit by lightning. I'm also saying, that if hit by lightning, it's better to have a properly grounded mast than not to have one.

This thread was DOA thanks to the OP. Not sure it matters what we discuss now. LoL

I would argue that is the 100% the manufacturer’s responsibility, in this world of software defined radios and certifications, to ensure that the firmware of the radio is written in such way as to ensure the radio remains in compliance with the FCC requirements. The firmware of the radio is not intended for user modification in anyway. The firmware is how the manufacturer’s leverage the exact same electronics to build radios to serve different markets, achieve different certifications, and expose different feature sets that yield different prices from the public. It is the specific combination of hardware and firmware that defines the radio. If the firmware of the radio allows the radio to do something that is disallowed or otherwise outside the specifications of the FCC, then the manufacturer has failed their responsibility. In contrast, again in this modern world of software defined radios, it is common place, and even expected practice, that radios be programmed by the user; the public. Programming is made possible through modifications of exposed settings available to the user via front panel controls and, if an externally accessible programming port is available, by means of external software. It is reasonable to conclude that, if the manufacturer has done their job, any and all settings that can be changed on the radio are a candidate for modification without affecting its legal usage. While we call changing the settings of a radio “programming”, actually we are doing nothing of a sort. We are not adding logic, business rules or enforcing and legal limits, we are merely changing the settings exposed to us by the radio’s design/implementation. I currently write software for a living. Any setting I expose to the user is fair game for modification. Any value the user provides is validated to ensure it is within an allowable range (where necessary). Where critical combinations of values are material, said combinations of values are validated to ensure they collectively pass muster. In an SDR, such ultimate rules are the responsibility of the hardware-firmware..the part of the radio not intended for user modification. I own a couple of modern HT, both of which are programmable via front panel controls and via software to various degree. When I make the mistake of setting values outside the allowable limits of the radio, the radio itself prevents the value from being used. If I am using the manufacturer’s software, the manufacturer’s software will tell me so and disallows the sending of the invalid value to the radio. Chirp on the other hand will not warn me, but will let me send the invalid value. However, if/when I attempt to use the radio with that setting, the radio itself warns me with an audio/visual indication of an invalid value and will not operate. Case in point... an invalid Tx frequency. In this case, the manufacturer has done their job. So to wrap this up. If the manufacturer of a GMRS certified radio has done their job per the intent of the FCC, the radio will not operate using any setting that would cause it to perform outside legal limits. The public has an equal responsibility to adhere to rules as well. If the user knowingly exploits a manufacture defect and use settings outside FCC limits, they are knowing breaking the law. If the midland radios make available settings to change by means of their programming port, it is reasonable to conclude they are, by design, intended for modification. Conversely, if you knowing exploit a manufacturer deficiency and set values outside the FCC limit then you have crossed the line. Michael WHRS965 KE8PLM Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I have to go with @hans' well prepared and documented presentation on this issue. Further, I would like to add a point that, I believe, has been missed so far. In §95.337 there is a primary condition placed on the limitation of modifications: No person shall modify any Personal Radio Service transmitter in a way that ... ...operation of the modified transmitter results in a violation of the rules in this part. In this case, the term this part refers to Part95, Personal Radio Services. So, as long as a GMRS certified radio continues to transmit within the rules set forth in Subpart E - General Mobile Radio Service (§§ 95.1701 - 95.1793-95.1899), modifications would be permitted. Now, there is a separate limitation in that same paragraph that prohibits modification of the ...form of modulation. So, we need to know what the FCC means here by the term modulation. And we find that answer in: 47 CFR §95.303 Modulation. A process of altering the amplitude, frequency and/or phase of a radio frequency carrier wave generated within a Personal Radio Service transmitter, for the purpose of impressing onto the carrier wave information to be transmitted. This is distinctly different from the term Emissions Designator, which describes Bandwidth, Modulation Type, Modulation Nature, and Information Type. So, as long as the radio continues to transmit in compliance with §95.1775 GMRS modulation requirements, which authorize both narrow and wide band operation, changes in bandwidth alone would be acceptable. And, finally, all else aside, if a radio is modified by programming solely to alter the received PL, etc. settings, such modifications would not affect the transmitter and would be completely permissible. So, in conclusion, based on @hans' posts and the information included here, I now have to say I believe @marcspaz's original contention that modification to transmit bandwidth, and in fact any modification at all, was incorrect. I contend that any modifications that do not cause a certified GMRS transmitter to operate outside the rules stated in Part 95E, are allowed.

As far as I can tell, the only flaw in your thought process is, the manufacture did not make the unit programmable by the end-user. It kind of reminds me of a set of visor lights I bought for my E-Comm vehicle. They were listed as "universal fit", but I had to radically modify the design of the light fixture and my vehicle to get the lights to fit. I complained to my son about the misleading description of "universal fit" and he said "Anything is 'universal fit' if you try hard enough and know what to do to make it work." Well, all modern IC based radios are 'programmable' to some degree, if you are smart enough and can get the right tools. Not all of them are intended to be programmable by the end-user. If what you are saying is true, the whole point of having manufactures get their equipment certified would be 100% pointless and thus not needed. Midland does not specifically sell hardware or software to allow end-user programing of the MXT400. Someone either leaked the software, reverse engineered it or otherwise produced software for availability to the public. The ability for the owner to enter into a programing mode of the radio was not included in the design concept, the type acceptance nor is it a retail product or service offered by the manufacture. Again, just my interpretation of the law/rules.

So, back to the question, I found two things... "§95.335 Operation of non-certified transmitters prohibited. Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, no person shall operate a transmitter in any Personal Radio Service unless it is a certified transmitter;..." Part a allows for LMR radio use. But the part C says only thr manufacturers can legally modify their equipment. "Grantee permissible modifications. Only the grantee of the equipment certification may modify the design of a certified Personal Radio Service..." So, between part c above, and this next rule, this leads me to believe any change in performance or operation (not to be confused with manipulating a UI feature) means the radio loses it certified status. §95.337 Operation of impermissibly modified equipment prohibited. No person shall modify any Personal Radio Service transmitter in a way that changes or affects the technical functioning of that transmitter such that operation of the modified transmitter results in a violation of the rules in this part. This includes any modification to provide for additional transmit frequencies, increased modulation level, a different form of modulation, or increased transmitter output power (either mean power or peak envelope power or both). Any such modification voids the certified status of the modified transmitter and renders it unauthorized for use in the Personal Radio Services. Also, no person shall operate any Personal Radio Service transmitter that has been so modified.

The “Q” codes explained and defined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_code

CSQ Carrier Squelch FPP Front Panel Programming SWR Standing Wave Ratio measured between the radio and the antenna. The lower, the better. SWL Short Wave Listening

That saying is attributed to Einstein by author Frederick Perls. But, AFAIK there is no quote or written reference directly from Einstein. Also, it appears that while Einstein may well have uttered those words, he was certainly not the first person to have made the observation. See: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/18140/did-einstein-say-two-things-are-infinite-the-universe-and-human-stupidity-and

Thanks.... I forgot. Old habits die hard. LOL