buttholejim

The first link was a complaint against Midland in 2009? And the second link has to do with improper license transfers involving ADM and Cargill? WTF do either of these links have to do with cheap CCR's??? Neither of these have any relevance in what's being discussed... Nice graphic though...

Wow. You must be the life of the party. So much for engaging in a rational, logical discussion. Please feel free to block me anytime. I had a friend of mine... blah, blah, blah...

Yeah... the AM radio thing is silly. But EeeeVeee's don't need any radio... 'cause they're connected to the cell phone network all the time so you can listen to Spotify and da gubbamint can spy on you all the time, even if you dropped yer cell phone in the toilet! The Anytone AT-779UV is OK. I like the display, but I hate how the controls function. I originally hated the display on the Btech UV-50X2 (QYT 980PLUS), but now that I've figured how to set them up, I like them. Well, I got my ribs in the smoker and my Jeep needs washed...

Lets see a link to FCC complaints that have resulted in any actions based on the cheap non-compliant CCR's. Or any other legal action where a CCR has been the culprit of a criminal act. Personally, I don't see the argument as being valid. And the reason is because it's not illegal to sell a radio that can be used on business band, GMRS, or ham to someone that does not have any type FCC license. You can ban and confiscate every UV-5R in the country, but it doesn't change anything. You can still buy radios from Motorola, Icom, Kenwood, etc. that still function on these bands and then some. The only difference is cost. As much as I detest anything made in Communist China, I don't understand why one specific cheap radio has generated so much controversy. In some areas GMRS/FRS has become the 21st Century day Citizens Band, with respect towards idiots that are abusing the band. And that sucks. But UV5R's aren't the cause of the problem. At least we don't have to deal with skip on GMRS...

Ughhh.... whenever rules for anything are put in place, people/companies are always going to find a way to circumvent/ignore/defy/rebel/plead ignorance against those rules for whatever reason suits them. We could go on and on with respect to industrial disasters. But if the rules are broken and there's a negative consequence to another party, the fact that rules existed, didn't exist, or were ignored becomes irrelevant. There was an incident that resulted in loss. And it's up to the courts to decide if it was from a negligent act that could have been reasonably avoided. But what if the rules are broken, and there's no loss of life or property, and the rule breaker can establish that the rules being violated in the proper context have no liability for causing a potential loss of life or property? That's the point I'm trying to make. Some rules are necessary because of the consequences of the actions the rules are intended to govern. Other rules are just antiquated, irrelevant, or serve no meaningful purpose. And we have a plethora of the latter. Why should I be forced into buying 3, 4 or 5 radios by FCC rules when one will serve the same purpose with no consequence?

This is an argument for nanny state government. Plain and simple. People do dumb shit all the time. And the answer for the very, very few number of people that are stupid enough to do something like try to intentionally interfere with a radio communication is to put "rules" in place to try to "idiot proof" everything. Guess what, it doesn't work. People still get into their car drunk all the time. Trying to keep users of illegal radios from interfering with public safety systems was not the reason for the adoption of trunked systems. I've been a scanner listener for many, many years. In the 1980's before any major metropolitan areas switched to trunked systems, I would listen to District 4 Police in Denver. I would listen for hours and hours. The radio channels were always busy. The switch to trunked systems was for greater efficiency and improved cross agency communications. Not once had I ever heard an interloper on a police channel. For that matter, I can't even recall ever reading a news story in the last 40 years where someone has used an "illegal" radio to interfere with public safety. No to say that it hasn't happened, but whatever incidents that may have happened are so low profile they probably aren't even news worthy. If someone honestly wanted to interfere with public safety channels for criminal reasons, they would probably resort to jamming and not try to engage in a conversation.

It's not about being a "rebel". Not my intention or motivation. But... there are ways to make the appearance of compliance, but not be technically compliant. No need to make "judgements" about my "attitude". One could buy a non-conforming radio, program all the legal license free channels (or even channels that require a license for which the user has the appropriate license) whilst ensuring that the programming itself complies with FCC rules for the respective services for channel separation, bandwidth, power, etc., and comply with FCC rules as for as proper etiquette, and in lawerspeek, what would would the damages be other than the ridiculous argument of "you're not following the rules"? Who would someone be hurting by not conforming with the rules by using a non-type certified radio while everything else is withing the rules? That's how a lawyer would put this in front of a jury. My point is there's a shitload of "rules" in the Code of Federal Regulations. For a large number of these rules, the justifications for these rules are outdated, nebulous, or completely lost for many of them. But no bureaucrat has ever had the motivation to make changes until there's complaints from the public. The ATF is a perfect example of this. Until you do something stupid enough to get their attention, they really don't go looking to bust weed smokers for lying on their Form 4473 when they make a firearms purchase. And for as yet unknown reasons, some people in the amateur radio community go into apoplectic seizures when someone suggests that responsibly using a non type certified radio is a crime against humanity.

Touché! Haha! I think I like this answer the best... Not that I'm incapable of spending hours reading through FCC rules with my lawyer goggles on. But after dealing with DoD contract compliance, government inspectors, and other bureaucratic government types, It's apparent that most of these employees are simply in it for the benefits and a paycheck. I have had security clearances in the past. I know how to keep my mouth shut. Rules be damned...

I think I'm gonna just jump in my Jeep to goof off and be happy with the selection of radios I have... Thank god (or Allah, Zenu, or whoever) BLM land is only 5 minutes from my house...

Hahaha! What kinda can of worms did I open up?

Bollocks! I feel soooo much safer now that I understand....

I have no understanding why the FCC can't, or wont allow multiple type certifications for a single radio. My point here is that I can't see any reason that you can't legally buy a type certified radio that covers both MURS, FRS, and Marine VHF. Is this because the manufactures don't want to bother with this? Or is there something within current FCC rules that I'm missing that prohibits this? Currently there's four "services" that do not require licensing, Marine VHF (license requirement eliminated in 1996), MURS, FRS, and Citizens Band (11M). Marine VHF is an interesting one. The limitations are pretty generous. The way I understand the current rules for Marine VHF is that as long as you are using to communicate with another person on (or near?) a navigable body of water, it's within the rules. So technically, if one party is on a kayak in a creek large enough to allow kayaking, and the other is onshore (and at no specifically defined distance from the water), communication on the Marine VHF band is permitted. Anywhere in the country. The power limitation is 25 watts for Marine VHF. What burns my bacon is you can buy a radio(s) that does have this capability (but they're not "legal"), so the technology is available, but the FCC wants you to buy 3 radios... Hmmm... maybe I just answered my own question...

Found something perfect for a RJ45/CAT-6 extension on Amazon. It's for a Yaesu rig, but I assume it would work with the Midland. I like the fact that it has a bulkhead flange on the mic cable end. https://www.amazon.com/FYL-Microphone-Extension-Modular-Kenwood/dp/B09FTJ84DG/ref=sr_1_4?crid=32L6HJH0PLQN3&keywords=rj45+microphone+extension+cable&qid=1677612801&sprefix=%2Caps%2C169&sr=8-4

Trunked public safety (fire/police) systems typically use radio towers separate from cell network towers. But, there's some exceptions. Private networks using PTT radios that use cellular phone networks is one. Most police departments use a combination of radio technology in their cruisers. Conventional trunked/repeater systems and cellular networks (for data). I'm no expert in the subject, but I suspect the reason is for redundancy, reliability, and security. In Colorado for example, the state operates a statewide trunked radio system for all public safety organizations. Remember that the cell phone networks (and their equipment/towers) are privately owned companies. Where public safety trunked systems are are owned and operated by various government agencies.

Yeah, generally, Midlands quality is pretty good. But if it's $400 and SOC, the price is a little high. I do like the idea of controls in the mic and stuffing the box under the seat of my Jeep. I also didn't see any extension cable for the mic. Looks like standard RJ45 stuff. I found lots of RJ45 extensions on Amazon but not sure if there something a little more robust that's specific for the MTX575. Many moons ago, I remember when Radio Shack first started selling a CB with the controls in the mic. I think they were the first to do that back in the 1970's. Always thought it was a cool idea. My pop put one of those Radio Shack CB's on his 1976 Honda Goldwing...