marcspaz

If you all don't mind me sharing an opinion... I didn't discuss this before my break for obvious reasons, but now that the KG-1000G is in production, I wanted to share some details. I was invited to be a tester of the KG-1000G prototype when there was only the single unit (the prototype) in existence. I spent a little more than a week running that rig very, very hard. It was a fantastic radio and I was really happy with it. If it wasn't the only one in existence I the time, I would have cut them a check instead of sending it back. Though I have never touched the final product, based on the prototype, I feel like you can't go wrong with the KG-1000G. Now that I have an MXT500 inbound, it should be interesting to see how it measures up to the KG-1000G. While I think the 500 will turn out to be a good radio, I doubt it will be as nice as the KG-1000G.

hahahahaha... Too funny. The comments on the video are ridiculous. Just my own opinion. It sounds like people are confusing the Open Repeater Initiative (OPI) and the "Travel Tone" with a "travel channel". The Open Repeater Initiative, which is long gone, was not the same thing as a "travel channel". There was a nationwide group of repeater owners who participated with the Open Repeater Initiative to set their ch20 pair (462.675/467.675) to use tone 141.3 (known as 4a). The idea was, to make the repeater open to the traveling public through common knowledge. If you found a repeater on the rCH 20 pair with a 4a PL, the assumption was to be that you don't need special permission to use that repeater. That is not the same as simplex channel 20 or simplex channel 19, etc., for just cruising around the country. Whatever most people agree on, who cares. Just talk. Again, just my opinion.

Thankfully the rule makers were smart enough to say (paraphrasing) "in an emergency, forget everything you just read." LOL

@wrci350 Great find!

Thank you for the welcome and the kind words. Life has been very busy for me at work and at home. I dropped out of GMRS and amateur radio for some time. I am just now getting some relief at work and at home, so I am getting back into it!

Yes, yes I think I did. LOL

Well, part of the reason why I think it may be allowed (would still seek clarification from FCC) is because the rules say that one-way communications is prohibited except for limited exceptions, and then they list exceptions of which this case type is not listed. That would mean its prohibited. The loophole could be, its not one-way communications. It's two-way communications. That said, the enforcement division of FCC may not agree that two-way communications across services is legally considered two-way communications.

@PartsMan BoxCar and tweiss3 bring up some good points. It may be worth sending an email to the FCC requesting clarification. The division called Wireless Telecommunications has a customer support email addresses and phone numbers. https://www.fcc.gov/wireless-telecommunications

I've never done it with GMRS, but if we use the example I noted, could we not do it that way since we are identifying who we are talking to and what frequencies are in use? I genuinely don't know. I haven't really looked into it.

We do that all the time in the Ham world when we speak to people is some other countries. US amateurs may not be licensed to transmit on frequencies other nations can, and vice versa. So, we transmit on a frequency we can legally use, announce what nation we are calling and what frequency we are listening to (a frequency they are licensed to transmit on). I would do the same thing on GMRS. For example "This is WRBY328 calling N1BED, listening on 446 MHz."

I just ordered mine today through an early access program. It comes with a mic and it was $360. EDIT: Also comes with free programing software and uses a traditional USB cable. No special cable needed. What's in the Box? MXT500 MicroMobile 2-Way Radio Mount with Hardware Microphone 12V Power Cord Antenna with Mount Owner's Manual Quick Start Guide

I have been gone from the forum for sometime... came back today to see what the chatter was about this. I ordered the 500 and it's expected to be here is a few days. I was glad to read that some of you got the programing tools for the 400. I'm sure that makes life a lot better for those who need the advanced features. I'll probably start my own thread to discuss 500, once its here and setup. I'm going to bench test it before it goes in the Jeep. Glad you all kept this thread going. It's a good read.

ok.

I'd have to find the time to go looking for them. I know Corey is one owner. I don't remember the names of the other folks, but I recall 2 or three people said they had the same experience as Corey. As far as if the site or the radio is in compliance... that seems like an awfully silly question to me. Why would the FCC not include the repeater equipment in the site inspection or deem the repeater site to be in compliance and pass inspection if there was illegal equipment being used? That is a major component that the FCC would issue a deficiency on if the transceivers were not correct.

We have had this conversation several times in the past year or so. We have repeater owners on this very forum using part 90 equipment that have had several site inspections done by the FCC and found in full compliance. Part 90 LMR radios are allowed.

Like I mentioned, I have not found any new certifications in the database. Pending, approved or otherwise. I guess someone is going to have to call them.

I highly doubt they would make a big deal about it. Mostly because I think most people who buy their gear have no idea what they would even be talking about. If I were to guess, I would suspect that it will be quietly released as either V3 or MXT400a (etc.) and just update the bulleted feature list. Of course... just a WAG.

Dido...

Agreed. It would be a smart move for Midland and a win for entry level operators.

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

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.

As mentioned previously (and noted above by Tom)... metal is fine, but requires much more (proper) grounding and lightning protection. You are significantly increasing your risk of a strike.

Many Amateur Radio suppliers sell them. The best two that I have used are the MFJ-1908HD and the MFJ-1906HD.

Hahaha... yes, Sir! I'm going to get a little sleep. I'll catch up with you soon.