Hans
-
Posts
357 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
51
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Classifieds
Posts posted by Hans
-
-
@Marcspaz noted that the MXT400 was only certified for NB in an earlier post. So, I think it is clear that setting that radio to WB would violate certification.
However, the Luiton LT-590 (which you first identified as the same radio) does seem to allow setting bandwidth to 12.5, 20 & 25 kHz. That is, the software provides the option. I have no idea if it actually works. See this post upthread in this topic.
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.
The Emissions Designator 10K5F3E signifies a wireless radio which transfers data over a modulated wave using Single analog channel signal. This signal transmits at a 10.5 kHz [10K5] maximum bandwidth . bandwith does not indicate frequency of the signal. Emissions Designators describe the type of signal only.
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. -
Are you sure of this? Perhaps I misread your post. I would think that if the manufacturer (or whoever is getting the radio certified) included the capability to configure elements of the radios via software, and documented those capabilities in the certification application, that doing so would be Ok. Note in particular the Kenwood GMRS radios that have keypad programming locked out but can be programmed with the appropriate software.
Of course, programming would not include changes that would not be allowed in GMRS, like transmission on non-GMRS frequencies, power and bandwidth settings > the FCC specified limits for a channel, etc. However, organizing memory locations and banks, setting PL, etc. and audio signaling, adding text labels, roger-beeps (though those should be categorically outlawed!), etc. would all seem to be things that can be changed by the end user without voiding the certification.
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 getting on the internet talking about how you plan on and/or are breaking the law is the invitation for the "bigger problems" to walk through the door.
Maybe that is the real convo to have... hihi
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."
-
I know this has been said before, but why pay twice as much for a Type Approved/Certified radio, just to reprogram it, nullifying the certification, making the radio non-compliant/illegal? I don't endorse it, but if you're going to run an illegal radio, there are way better and more affordable radios out there.
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 do not even sleep with one on a regular basis.
I've never been able to resist their briefs.
-
Sure. They show a VHF radio but the programming should be the same.
Thanks!
-
I don't think many are picking up on the fact that Midland is marketing a sheep dipped CCR at a premium price.
- H8SPVMT, Elkhunter521 and berkinet
-
3
-
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.
-
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but the subject of Midland radios being not dual PL tone capable has already been addressed.
The MXT400 is split tone capable if programmed to do so. Out of respect for the experts on here who have posted about this several times, and so they won't have to post yet again, please view this thread:
https://forums.mygmrs.com/topic/1837-midland-gmrs-product-updates/page-3
I have not tried it myself (yet), but to be fair, this option is out there.
...
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.
-
Hey, I'm new to this and just learning. Can you explain why the Midland MultiMobile radios wont work?
thanks
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. -
Not in the gen 2... I'm not sure what is planned for the gen 3. I have heard rumor, but nothing confirmed.
I just looked up their certs. The last one was issued in September of 2016. It is listed as 10K5F3E bandwidth on all frequencies, which is a max of 10.5 kHz. There is nothing newer that I have found. Someone else may have better luck.
Thanks for the update, friend.
-
I find it pretty entertaining how people's experiences vary. Even my own experiences vary inside the brands.
My gen 1 MXT400's were trash. One caught on fire and the other would overheat after a few minutes. Midland replaced them with gen 2 units and I have had fantastic performance with my replacement MXT400's.
Then, I had 3 BTech amateur radios suffer catastrophic failures inside of a 3 week time frame and the 4th, a GMRS radio, was super dirty and I sold it almost immediately. But my BTech amateur radio HT's are wonderful performers.
Anyway, in the spirit of this revived thread, in my Jeep, I have an MXT400, an FT-891, and an FT-8900R. In one of my 1500's, I have an MXT400 and an FT-857D. In my other 1500, I have an MXT400 and a FT-8900R. in my Mustang... no GMRS, just a Kenwood TM-V71A.
Has Midland addressed the narrow band and tones issue yet? The latter makes them unusable in our AO.
-
I know some members might cringe when I say this however, BTECH recently released a GMRS specific mobile & handheld.(two handheld models) that are supposed to be FCC certified and so far have received pretty positive reviews from users (most being licensed, experienced GMRS and HAM users) posting reviews on YouTube.
For the price, both for the radios and the accessories, the warranty and customer service, this might be worth considering. Especially as a starter radio. I have been told by my Retevis seller that they too will be releasing there GMRS specific version soon as they are currently in the process of attempting to receive FCC approval.
Other than the already mentioned tone code issue for the Midland brand GMRS specific radios, the MTX115 is known to suffer a significant receive problem limiting its range and I’ve never heard if that was ever corrected. The problem was limited to the MTX115 model only and didn’t effect any of the other three or four models that they offer.
Good luck with your choice !
I agree. I would take BTECH offerings over the Midland offerings.
-
This post is from 2018. Regarding the comment about the MTX-400, is that still the case in 2020? Midland haven't changed anything yet?
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.)
-
Just a matter of de-solder and remove R614? used-radios won't do it in-house. Is access easy enuf?
..and is FPP a lot simpler than software programming?
Thanks.
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.
-
-
For the most part, yes. Though 8 through 14 are exclusively FRS and the GMRS repeater inputs are between those dedicated FRS frequencies.
Power and radio type are (for the most part) the only significant characteristics that set them apart from each other.
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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/95.563§ 95.563 FRS channels.
The FRS is allotted 22 channels, each having a channel bandwidth of 12.5 kHz. All of the FRS channels are also allotted to the General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) on a shared basis. The FRS channel center frequencies are set forth in the following table:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/95.1763§ 95.1763 GMRS channels.
The GMRS is allotted 30 channels - 16 main channels and 14 interstitial channels. GMRS stations may transmit on any of the channels as indicated below.
-
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.
- RCM and cateyetech
-
2
-
Addendum:
on the Land Mobile Radio Service (LMRS) frequency 464.550 MHz and on multiple frequencies in the Family Radio Service (FRS) and General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS)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.
-
The key points in the letter were the use of the GMRS frequencies and uncertified units.
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,
They are using the GMRS capable equipment for its higher power so they can cover longer distances between flagging points.
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.
The uncertified equipment would be amatuer gear repurposed for GMRS/Part 90 frequencies.
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.
The Land Mobile Radio Service license WQOB287 authorizes Traffic Control Services LLC DBA Flagger Force to operate radio transmitting equipment on the frequencies 461.1125 MHz, 461.2125 MHz, 466.1125 MHz, and 466.2125 MHz.
2) They were allegedly operating on LMRS, FRS, and GMRS.
employees are allegedly operating two-way radios on the Land Mobile Radio Service (LMRS) frequency 464.550 MHz and on multiple frequencies in the Family Radio Service (FRS) and General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) including 467.6125 MHz, 467.6375 MHz, 467.6625 MHz, and 462.7250 MHz.
3) The allegedly don't hold a license for LMRS or GMRS.
does not hold a license to operate any radio transmitting equipment on the LMRS
here is no evidence that ... holds, or is eligible to hold, a license to operate radio transmitting equipment on any GMRS frequency.
4) They were allegedly using uncertified equipment on the license by rule FRS.
Although an individual license is not required to operate radio transmitting equipment in the FRS, the radio transmitting equipment must be certificated for use in the FRS in accordance with subpart J of part 2 of the Commission’s Rules.
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.
The only exception to this licensing requirement is for certain transmitters using or operating at a power level or mode of operation that complies with the standards established in Part 15 of the Commission’s rules.
-
The FCC just issued a notice of violation to Traffic Control Services for unlicensed operation on LMR and GMRS frequencies in 4 mid-Atlantic sates. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357545A1.pdf
Another part of that notice recognized that they could've used FRS but their transmitters lacked the proper certification.
- Logan5, coryb27, Elkhunter521 and 1 other
-
4
Midland GMRS Product updates
in Equipment Reviews
Posted
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.