Lscott

One might be tempted to assume it's secure. I don't know if the exact protocol is documented but some kind of synchronization code has to be communicated between the radios. Who knows what else is being sent. In fact it might even be a requirement that "secret" hop info is being transmitted and that only "authorized" government agencies have access to it for monitoring use.

Unfortunately that isn't really available, promiscuous mode, for some digital systems. That would be very handy for monitoring things like NXDN and P25 trunking systems. The protocol is written such that when a digital transmission is picked up, and its tagged as from a trunking system, unless the radio has a valid "system key" loaded, not an encryption key, for that system the data is not decoded to audio and the radio stays muted. At least that's my understanding. https://forums.radioreference.com/threads/for-simply-receiving-nxdn-digital-audio-do-i-need-to-use-the-nxdn-trunking-system-feature-when-programming-my-radio.402726/ For my NXDN radios, NX-300's, the programming software won't even show the NXDN network info window without a valid system key loaded in to the software. Kenwood keeps a fairly tight lock on the software for these system keys. It's the KPG-110SM. https://comms.kenwood.com/en/products/model.php?ID=KPG-110SM-a I have a buddy the does use a XTS-5000 P25 radio on 800 MHz to monitor his local public service agencies. He used what was called an "non affiliated" mode but still had to fudge up a system key for the radio to get the thing to work. http://www.mtolab.com/howto/non-affiliation-scanning/

With only 22 channels available for me I just scan them all. I even do that at home. If I hear something interesting I stop the scan. It helps if the radio scans reasonably fast too. Some of the Chinese radios are really SLOW while scanning, if that matters to you. That might be one thing to check before laying out your money.

Well you can ask those who have been convicted and I'm sure they can tell you what equipment doesn't work.

Well it simply comes down to the money. Somebody has to pay the software guy to rework functioning firmware for their Ham version of the radio, or totally new firmware, to meet FCC GMRS regulations. It's not going to be done for free. If the manufacture doesn't see a huge market for a product with those features it's poor business sense to spend money on something that won't increase sales in a major way. Once you sit through a few meetings between sales and engineering groups, I have for the kind of business our company is in, the question pops up "how much is the customer willing to pay for feature "x"?". The answer in some cases is little to done. Guess what? Management kills the idea and it doesn't make it to production. That's they way the business world works.

These commercial radios are worth looking at. These are Kenwood radios. Some others here have recommendation for Motorola and other brands. https://mra-raycom.com/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/Specifications/portables/TK-270G-370G-Product-Brochure.pdf https://www.urci.com/downloads/kenwood/kenwood_tk_2170_3170_brochure.pdf The TK-3173 is basically the same as the TK-3170, and uses the same software too, but includes trunking which you don't need for GMRS anyway. http://www.swscomm.com/kenwood/TK-3173.pdf http://www.swscomm.com/kenwood/TK-2140_3140.pdf https://kenwoodsub.dealerarena.com/ProductPDFs/10/TK-2180&3180Brochure.pdf The TK-3212L and TK-3212 are almost the same identical radios expect for several very minor feature differences. https://orizonmobile.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/LIT_TK-2312_3312.pdf https://literature.puertoricosupplier.com/044/FL43682.pdf I have all these radios except for the TK-3312 at the moment so I have a good idea what they can and can't do.

One of the first two things I do when looking at a radio model I don't presently own, typically the commercial versions, is find the manufacture's brochure for it and then look to see if the programming software with cable is available. The brochure answers most of the questions one might have about number of memory channels, power and other features of interest. It's better than trying to ask people on forums like this while trying to figure out if radio fits with your operating requirements. Also if I can't get the programming software I have ZERO interest in the radio regardless of how good it looks. If I can't program it then it's just a paper weight.

And people wonder why older folks don't give a crap about opinions from the "Tide-Pod" eating generation.

It's not a hardware limitation. It's just the radio's programming software and firmware. A company see's they can make a few bucks selling an inexpensive GMRS radio so they give some firmware programmer a job to hack the current code, for one of their cheap Ham versions, enough to pass the FCC's certification requirements. Most likely they didn't want to spend much time and money on it, just do it quick and cheap. That's particular true if they don't see a huge market for the end product. They are not looking to make the radio highly customizable.

Then you have the local PD's officers and detectives using modified Ham radios while doing surveillance operations. They operate on non licensed police frequencies for the above reasons, the criminals don't know which frequencies are being used, thus likely aren't monitoring, and the detectives can switch in seconds. Many years ago I was siting with a ground of friends for dinner at a local restaurant. I saw two uniformed police officers enter and sit down. Both had their Motorola brick radios and switched on. One of the officers had an easily identified Yeasu FT-50 sitting on the table as well. I seriously doubt he was playing Ham Radio while on break. Was the radio modified? Don't know. But it got me researching and discovered it wasn't that uncommon for the police to use "free-banded" Ham radios for "private" communications that aren't monitored by dispatch.

Is this just a complaint with all GMRS radios or just the cheap ones, mainly of Chinese manufacture? I have a huge collection of LMR radios certified for Part 95 that have no such limitations. Then again they weren't cheap radios when new, and some are still sort of expensive used. IMHO the cheap GMRS radios are using quickly modified firmware originally designed for the Ham version of the radios. It's probably easier to lock out whole banks of channels for TX programming rather than doing a major rewrite of the code to add in all of the necessary range checks to limit the frequencies to GMRS specific ones for the extra channels. The same goes with the radio's programming software too. Then you look at the FRS radios. How many of those allow custom programming of channel names etc.? Same with CB radios. How many users of those really care? From a manufacture's perspective they look at a small group of users who use the full suite of custom features. They are not going to spend the design effort adding them in until the majority of the market demands it and the price will reflect it too.

You made some invalid assumptions. I simply mentioned what other people have done, cable end in a glass jar. It’s fair to debate the merits of the practice. I’m not advocating the idea. Perhaps that wasn’t made crystal clear in my post. If I’ve stumbled across this then it’s assured others will. It needs to be addressed. The second one is nowhere was there mention of not using a lighting arrester in place of the cable in a glass jar either. http://www.na0tc.org/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=technical:dissipation_of_lightning_energy_dayton_050908.pdf This is a good read on the topic. https://www.w5nor.org/presentations/PolyphaserGuide.pdf

I don’t have a KG-935 radio so this is just for my educational benefit. I’m a bit confused by the above. Are you saying you can’t use mixed CTCSS and DCS as spilt tones on one channel? That would be a bit restrictive having to use both tones, TX and RX, as CTCSS or DCS.

I don’t recommend using receive tones at all except under exceptional conditions. Myself I almost never use them. I want to monitor any and all traffic on a channel. The only exceptions I have is one simplex frequency I use with a group of friends when out at large radio swap meets. The other is to block DMR traffic, from a hospital, when I’m just interested in the analog FM when monitoring a local mall security frequency. Both use the same UHF frequency.

That needs to be hammered in to everybody's head! If you can't hear the other station nothing else matters. People get so hung up on how much power does the radio have, 5 watts, 15 watts, 50 watts plus. Seems sort of silly to get other people to run high power because you radio's receiver sucks. Some of the crappy CCR's are fairly deaf and or very prone to receiving signals that are not on the actual frequency being used. I have one that I can pickup a UHF fire dispatch transmission clear as a bell on several FRS/GMRS channels. And that transmitter has to be a good 15 to 20 miles away!! Nice looking radio, receiver selectivity sucks. It's good for a beater radio but that's about all. I haven't used it in many months. Fortunately I didn't spend that much on it.

I'll bet it would have been fun to be the fly on the wall during the design review meetings where that was discussed.

Then again maybe not if people say screw the new radio and would rather keep using the older model. The price used might go up.

Just another way to make more $$$$$$$$$$$

Correct. I have the type 2 because i want to use them on the Ham Bands at some point. Unless one pulls the battery pack off and checks the FCC ID sticker you wouldn't know the difference. A good very basic radio, even a kid could use, that works for GMRS are the TK-3160 and TK-3360 radios. I have a number of both, but neither one is certified for Part 95. With some creative reading of the rules even these might be OK. A poster a while back had some contact with the FCC where they said they won't come after anybody for "just using a Part 90 radio" on GMRS unless you get busted for something else too. In that case the "something else" will likely be much more of problem to worry about.

Kenwood is moving in the same direction as Motorola, they want to nick you for more money with every little feature, by making it a licensed option, need internet access for license validation etc. I have zero interest in their new radios like the NX-5xxx series. I'm like you, I'm sticking with the older radios. Before I buy a used radio model I never had before I'll search for the programming software. If I can't find it on the 'net I won't waste my money on it. If you can get your hands on a bunch of those used TK-3173's you shouldn't have much of a problem selling them on the auction sites for $50 or so as GMRS radios. Problem is most people selling them think they're worth 2 to 3 times that, they're not.

The Kenwood models that have the old Part 95A certification I own are: TK-370 TK-370G TK-3140 TK-3170 TK-3173 TK-3212 TK-5320 NX-300 Some of the radios come in different frequency splits. The one that do and have the Part 94A certification are the high split versions, starting at or above 450MHz. The last two are combo analog and digital, P25 and NXDN.

You would think so. I have some Kenwood HT’s that have the old Part 95A and Part 90 certification. Sort of muddles up the rule part you mentioned. I’m going to guess the intent is to make sure that frequencies outside of GMRS are not accessible under any operator condition, or action, if the radio has the ability to use non GMRS frequencies through programming.

What would better is the FCC giving their official blessing to a dual service license free radio specifically for FRS and MURS use ONLY. The problem with the CCR's, beside some not having clean outputs, is the cost is so low lay people buy them and treat them like toys. A few years ago somebody was wishing the local mall, by my work place, security supervisor Merry Christmas on their frequency! He wasn't happy and defiantly NOT in a happy holiday mood.

The guy who does the small rectangular paper slips with Ben Franklin's portrait on them does business too. It all depends on who he works for, the Fed's or himself.

What about using one of them on land? I see mention of people hiking in the mountains, dense woods etc. This might be cheaper than getting a sat-phone. On the page I linked to there is mention of the personal locator beacons. That's what I was questioning. There is a site to register your beacon at too. https://beaconregistration.noaa.gov/RGDB/index FAQ: https://beaconregistration.noaa.gov/RGDB/faq;jsessionid=Y1oYUxo-1elXXc4a0aJlKBO6iH73QLsG8FXfQ7Dh.jboss-ops-two https://www.hiking-for-her.com/personal-locator-beacons.html