Hans

I looked some more and I don't see any denial of programming capabilities. The only thing I noticed was in the manual where it specifies port (8) on the front as Data Terminal and deems it not used. That, in and of itself, doesn't rule out programming the radio under their certification, IMHO. As long as that programming consists of doing the split tones, labeling channels, adding more GMRS only channels, and not going beyond NFM; I can't see where it would violate their certification. My nonprofessional conclusion is that programming alone will not violate its certification as long as the parameters remain the same. Then again, I am just a guy with a computer on the interwebs.

Awesome. Admittedly, I am behind the times on the issue. Thanks for getting me up to speed.

I just checked and at first glance they only have certification for narrow band. https://fccid.io/MMAMXT400 Edited to add: My guess is that the CCR base of this radio is incapable of being set to a wide band signal to meet the GMRS width on wide. I'd bet it only does 25 KHz for wide.

If they only tested it in narrow, etc then it wouldn't be certified for those features. However, if, as you point out, they did test and document them through the certification process then it would not invalidate the certification. Someone needs to dig through the documents listed under that FCC ID and determine if those features, especially wide band, were certified. I suspect that it wasn't because, IIRC, wide for that radio is 25 KHz and GMRS wide band was reduced (kind of like MURS was).

True, but again, there are much bigger issues at hand if one is having their posts on the internet dug up over a certified radio that might or might not be programmed. For example, I could say I am 6'7" tall and play a mean game of basketball. That doesn't make it true or even likely. Only when other evidence correlates with online posts does it really matter much. I think the main thing is that when a radio, at first glance, passes the sticker/FCC ID smell test, all other possibilities drop to near zero... UNLESS there is something much bigger behind the inquiry. The sticker and FCC ID are prima facie evidence that "these are not the droids you are looking for."

The sticker and database entry; prima facie. If someone is searching your radio beyond viewing the sticker or an FCC ID database search, you have bigger problems than an uncertified radio.

I've never been able to resist their briefs.

Thanks!

I don't think many are picking up on the fact that Midland is marketing a sheep dipped CCR at a premium price.

I want to say good work and thank y'all for the effort. I have been sidetracked with other stuff for a bit and never got back around to messing with it. This is good news for a lot of people, IMHO.

How could you be "beating a dead horse" when it is information some of us didn't have? I was unaware it had been addressed and even asked if it had just the other day in this very thread. You have brought very good news indeed. Thank you.

They are narrow band only while GMRS allows for wide band. This means that the Midland radios will often have lower volume over our wide band repeaters and some of our repeaters here might even have problems passing the signal/opening up/keeping open the repeater (according to at least one repeater owner in my area that had such problems), YMMV. The biggest problem for my area is that you cannot specify a squelch tone different than the transmit tone. We have repeaters that use different tones in than they put out. Often we would run carrier squelch on those repeaters. All of the Midland users here found their radios to be frustrating to near useless. Their transmissions were getting talked over and they were inadvertently talking over others on the community tone (multiple tone) repeaters. I cannot think of one Midland user that still tries to use one on our local repeaters. Most just gave up on repeaters and perhaps even GMRS all together as they just dropped off of the air never to return after they learned why they were having problems using the repeaters. None were happy to have over-spent thinking they were getting a ready-to-go product only to find out it wasn't so ready-to-go and that Midland apparently ignores the issues. (Edited for a typo.)

As long as one understand that if you use them in an area where repeaters are split-tone then they will be pretty much useless for hobby or serious repeater use... That's really the pity because it would be very easy for Midland to fix the issue but they apparently have no regard for their customers. PT Barnum was right, I suppose.

Thanks for the update, friend.

Has Midland addressed the narrow band and tones issue yet? The latter makes them unusable in our AO.

I agree. I would take BTECH offerings over the Midland offerings.

AFAIK, Midland has not addressed these issues. I am of the opinion that they do not care one bit about their customers. I share the same sentiments as mbrun posted above... I wouldn't touch their products until they address the issues. YMMV (Edited for typo.)

This appears to be a photo of the board. Not sure of revisions. I did a quick search so take this with a grain of salt... https://www.qsl.net/yo4hfu/TK880.html Mods, if this violates TOS, please be gentle and I apologize in advance.

It happens to me all of the time.

That's from the old rules. There are now no longer exclusive FRS channels. There are only exclusive GMRS repeater inputs. The 22 simplex channels of both FRS and GMRS are all the same frequencies now.

My family is very close with a Chinese family (most don't speak much English). One family member, a pupil of mine since she was in elementary school up until she completed her masters degree several years ago, told me way back that Baofeng was pronounced "Bow" "Fung". However, the other family members always pick on her for having "a hick accent". Apparently, she is chinese redneck. lol So, take that for what it's worth.

Addendum: Notice that FRS is nestled between LMRS at the front and GMRS at the end? When I was writing legal notices and might have to argue them (in a previous lifetime), I would put the most important first, the least important in the middle, and the second most important last. The first and last generally stay in the minds of those reading/hearing an argument the most.

Unlicensed use of LMRS frequencies without falling under the Part 15 power level/modes exception is also a big point. IMHO, someone would get smacked more quickly by the FCC for unauthorized use/interference on LMRS before they would GMRS or FRS. Also IMHO, GMRS and FRS were just gravy on top of the LMRS meat for the FCC. Notice which service the FCC listed first... LMRS, There is no indication that they were using mobiles or running over power limits in GMRS. Their license for itenerant frequencies is for 5 watt units. That's no less than what a certified GMRS unit would be capable of. Besides, why wouldn't they have simply used more units than they had licensed since the wattage is the same and the frequency range isn't that much different so propagation differences would likely be negligible, barring some kind of interference. No, I don't believe this was about higher power output unless the FCC forgot to document it in the notice; which is something I would find unlikely. It didn't have to necessarily been amateur gear. The document doesn't state that they were running Part 15 certified or home brew equipment.

1) They do hold a license for mobile itinerant frequencies, albeit a relatively small number of 5 watt units. 2) They were allegedly operating on LMRS, FRS, and GMRS. 3) The allegedly don't hold a license for LMRS or GMRS. 4) They were allegedly using uncertified equipment on the license by rule FRS. 5) As far as I can figure, they allegedly did not qualify for Part 15 exception on 464.550 MHz due to power levels and/or modes.

Another part of that notice recognized that they could've used FRS but their transmitters lacked the proper certification.