Hans

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/08/29/2017-17395/personal-radio-service-reform "For similar reasons, it declined to allow GMRS licensees to use equipment certified under part 90 Land Mobile Radio Service rules unless it is also certified for part 95." ... "Further, regarding the use of part 90 equipment that is not also certified under part 95, the part 95 R&O noted that many part 90 certified radios have no technical similarity to GMRS, so such a broad exemption to the Commission's standard practice of requiring a part 95 equipment authorization would lead to unknown consequences on the service. "

Just because the FCC isn't enforcing it right now, doesn't mean that it is allowed under the rules. It is right in front of us in black and white. Also, Laura (somebody or another) with the FCC was asked in writing soon after the rule changes if Part 90 radios are allowed and she said no. This was well documented on the web if I can find it. Regardless, it is NOT allowed in GMRS under the current regulations. If it is, please produce the evidence. I have produced evidence to the contrary. ETA: It was Laura Smith.

Although the claim is made, even as recently as a page or so back in this thread, that LMR certified (Part 90) radios may be used, that does not appear to me to be the case at all. What is typically quoted is § 95.335 but something is missing from the language to allow LMR only certified radios to be used in GMRS. While § 95.335 ( a ) does make the exception, it also qualifies the exception with "Any such exceptions applicable to stations in a Personal Radio Service are set forth in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., §§ 95.735 and 95.1735." § 95.1761 gives no exception parameters in GMRS and the example reference, § 95.1735, no longer exists. It is now reserved. Therefore, it is my opinion that there is no exception for LMR certified radios that are not also GMRS certified to be used in the GMRS service.

That's exactly what we needed to know and it is very good news. Awesome post! Thanks.

Yes, in my AO we are scraping to find repeater pairs for repeaters. We have several very high profile repeaters and it takes careful consideration for each new low profile on that goes on air. Thankfully, all repeater owners in our area have cooperated in figuring out what pair will work best for a given site. More low profile repeaters and one higher profile repeater are planned in the next couple of months

That is the question.

Many valid gripes here but things are as they are now. We all have to figure out how to use FRS, GMRS, and MURS in harmony. Anyone that can't perhaps isn't well served by those three personal radio services. For them, there are amateur and commercial radio services as well as the 900 MHz license by rule service (I forget what its called). If many high profile repeaters did move to 70 cm, I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep. In metropolitan areas, a lot of high profile repeaters use up a limited number of repeater pairs and may add to the friction. I respect and work with those who have high profile systems. I welcome them and am glad they are there; they have every right to be. However, when a population dense area gets saturated with them, it pushes too many out from using GMRS fully. Low profile, some call "garage repeaters", better fit the modern GMRS model. I think a mixture of a few high profile and a lot of lower profile repeaters is a more equitable and genuine model for GMRS.

I am still curious if uplander found the more current Midlands to have the repeater channels set actual WFM from the factory. Confirmation of such a detail would be important.

Thanks for that. It's a good data point. It would make sense that, at least by now, they made those repeater channels WFM. Edited: Oops. I didn't read that through. Thankfully, berkinet caught the possible snag.

This is awesome. I don't even have to post.

^^^ This ^^^

Excellent post, my friend.

In case it was missed before... Nothing says it must be authorized, condoned, intended, etc by the grantee, Nothing says that one must use grantee provided software or cables. It simply states that software changes that do not affect the radio frequency emissions may be made by other parties. These end users reprogramming, within the parameters we laid forth, are said "other parties" exempted in § 2.1043. https://www.law.corn.../text/47/2.1043 § 2.1043 Changes in certificated equipment. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph ( b )( 3 ) of this section, changes to the basic frequency determining and stabilizing circuitry (including clock or data rates), frequency multiplication stages, basic modulator circuit or maximum power or field strength ratings shall not be performed without application for and authorization of a new grant of certification. Variations in electrical or mechanical construction, other than these indicated items, are permitted provided the variations either do not affect the characteristics required to be reported to the Commission or the variations are made in compliance with the other provisions of this section. Changes to the software installed in a transmitter that do not affect the radio frequency emissions do not require any additional filings and may be made by parties other than the holder of the grant of certification.

That is a misleading and patently incorrect statement.

If the design concept prohibits programming the radio in the documents submitted to the FCC for certification, please post it. I have not found it anywhere. One cannot argue what might have been. One can only argue that which is and that which is reasonable. As I pointed out before, it would only be reasonable that Midland knew of the programming capabilities of the radio. They did not have their custom firmware block it. They did not alter the design to make the programming port useless. NOTHING in the regulations say that you have to use their programming software or their programming cable to alter the codeplug. One can write their own software (CHIRP ring a bell?) and can make their own serial cable. No wires were clipped. No hardware modifications were performed on the radio so, it clearly does not violate the modification prohibition. Additionally, programming clearly falls under the exception of § 2.1043 ( a).

Midland had the firmware written for them. They chose not to have that user programming blocked. Also, the design was submitted under Midland's direction and it had that programming feature still available. I would win that case without a doubt. Still, it isn't necessary since... § 2.1043 explicitly allows for "changes to the software installed in a transmitter that do not affect the radio frequency emissions do not require any additional filings and may be made by parties other than the holder of the grant of certification." Edited to add: If it is not prohibited under the rules, it is allowable. The rules presented thus far clearly do not prohibit changing the programming as long as it does not result in the transmitter violating the certification parameters.

Summary: - The radio is not being modified since the manufacturer designed it to be programmable and it is perfectly reasonable to expect that the Grantee, Midland, knew this feature existed. They presumably had all of the technical specification. They presumably had a sample from the actual manufacturer. They presumably had internet access and could have reasonably surmised some programming capability of the Luiton model, just as we all have been able to do in this information age. It is therefore reasonable to infer that the Grantee knew, or reasonably should have known, about at least the existence of programming capability of the unit prior to certification. Hence, programming the unit through the available programming port is not a modification of the Grantee's design as certified. - § 2.1043 explicitly allows for "changes to the software installed in a transmitter that do not affect the radio frequency emissions do not require any additional filings and may be made by parties other than the holder of the grant of certification." - There is a weaker argument that updating data tables (often referred to as a "codeplug") in a transmitter that do not cause that transmitter to perform outside of certified parameters does not even rise to the level of "changes in software" as the firmware, the actual software, itself is unmodified. Only the data tables change. This argument also places the act of harmlessly (meaning within certification parameters) updating these tables even farther from any reasonable definition of "modification".

For those that want to understand the context as to why I went back to § 2.1043... https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/95.335 § 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; that is, a transmitter of a type which has obtained a grant of equipment certification for that service, pursuant to part 2, subpart J of this chapter. Use of a transmitter that is not FCC-certified voids the user's authority to operate that station. See sections 302( a ), ( b ), and ( e ) of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 302( a ), ( b ), and ( e )). ( a ) Exceptions. Under certain exceptions, non-certified Personal Radio Service transmitters, or transmitters certified for use in the land mobile radio services may be operated. Any such exceptions applicable to stations in a Personal Radio Service are set forth in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., §§ 95.735 and 95.1735. ( b ) Revoked or withdrawn certification. In the event that the FCC revokes or withdraws a grant of equipment certification for a type of Personal Radio Service transmitter, existing transmitters already in service may continue to be operated unless and until the FCC determines otherwise and gives Public Notice of that decision. ( c ) Grantee permissible modifications. Only the grantee of the equipment certification may modify the design of a certified Personal Radio Service transmitter type, and then only pursuant to and in full compliance with the requirements and procedures for permissible changes and modifications in part 2 of this chapter. See §§ 2.932 and 2.1043 of this chapter.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/2.1043 § 2.1043 Changes in certificated equipment. (a) Except as provided in paragraph ( b )(3) of this section, changes to the basic frequency determining and stabilizing circuitry (including clock or data rates), frequency multiplication stages, basic modulator circuit or maximum power or field strength ratings shall not be performed without application for and authorization of a new grant of certification. Variations in electrical or mechanical construction, other than these indicated items, are permitted provided the variations either do not affect the characteristics required to be reported to the Commission or the variations are made in compliance with the other provisions of this section. Changes to the software installed in a transmitter that do not affect the radio frequency emissions do not require any additional filings and may be made by parties other than the holder of the grant of certification. ( b ) Three classes of permissive changes may be made in certificated equipment without requiring a new application for and grant of certification. None of the classes of changes shall result in a change in identification. (1) A Class I permissive change includes those modifications in the equipment which do not degrade the characteristics reported by the manufacturer and accepted by the Commission when certification is granted. No filing is required for a Class I permissive change. (2) A Class II permissive change includes those modifications which degrade the performance characteristics as reported to the Commission at the time of the initial certification. Such degraded performance must still meet the minimum requirements of the applicable rules. When a Class II permissive change is made by the grantee, the grantee shall provide complete information and the results of tests of the characteristics affected by such change. The modified equipment shall not be marketed under the existing grant of certification prior to acknowledgement that the change is acceptable. (3) A Class III permissive change includes modifications to the software of a software defined radio transmitter that change the frequency range, modulation type or maximum output power (either radiated or conducted) outside the parameters previously approved, or that change the circumstances under which the transmitter operates in accordance with Commission rules. When a Class III permissive change is made, the grantee shall provide a description of the changes and test results showing that the equipment complies with the applicable rules with the new software loaded, including compliance with the applicable RF exposure requirements. The modified software shall not be loaded into the equipment, and the equipment shall not be marketed with the modified software under the existing grant of certification, prior to acknowledgement that the change is acceptable. Class III changes are permitted only for equipment in which no Class II changes have been made from the originally approved device. (Edited to clean up formatting and get rid of the darn smileys with "b".)

For those that want to follow along and check for context... https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/part-95

The programming, within the parameters we have discussed do not do any of the following: - "provide for additional transmit frequencies" since any additional channels are from the pool of GMRS frequencies already provided by the certification. - "increased modulation level" - "a different form of modulation" - "increased transmitter output power" Within the parameters, the most programming does perform is: - Program through a method designed into the radio by the actual manufacturer. - Allow for split tones from the available tones for which the transmitter was certified. - Potentially add more preset channels from the pool of already certified frequencies. Did I miss anything?

Programming, within the limitations we have already discussed, do not "change or affect the technical functioning of the transmitter such that operation of the modified transmitter results in a violation of the rules". That's why we have been making a distinction between programming it within GMRS rules and not programming wide so it doesn't violate the certification since it was only certified as narrow.

The actual manufacturer designed it to be programmable. Does accessing that programming "modify the design"? I would say no.

Perhaps we are just retired and have nothing better to do. By the way, get off my lawn!

I will be very interested in checking it out. Please make sure you include a link so we can fish for context.