Hans

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.

I have to go with @hans' well prepared and documented presentation on this issue.  Further, I would like to add a point that, I believe, has been missed so far.  In §95.337 there is a primary condition placed on the limitation of modifications: No person shall modify any Personal Radio Service transmitter in a way that ... ...operation of the modified transmitter results in a violation of the rules in this part. In this case, the term this part refers to Part95, Personal Radio Services.  So, as long as a GMRS certified radio continues to transmit within the rules set forth in Subpart E - General Mobile Radio Service (§§ 95.1701 - 95.1793-95.1899), modifications would be permitted.
 
Now, there is a separate limitation in that same paragraph that prohibits modification of the ...form of modulation. So, we need to know what the FCC means here by the term modulation. And we find that answer in:
47 CFR §95.303 Modulation.
A process of altering the amplitude, frequency and/or phase of a radio frequency carrier wave generated within a Personal Radio Service transmitter, for the purpose of impressing onto the carrier wave information to be transmitted.
This is distinctly different from the term Emissions Designator, which describes Bandwidth, Modulation Type, Modulation Nature, and Information Type. So, as long as the radio continues to transmit in compliance with §95.1775 GMRS modulation requirements, which authorize both narrow and wide band operation, changes in bandwidth alone would be acceptable.
 
And, finally, all else aside, if a radio is modified by programming solely to alter the received PL, etc. settings, such modifications would not affect the transmitter and would be completely permissible.
 
So, in conclusion, based on @hans' posts and the information included here,  I now have to say I believe @marcspaz's original contention that modification to transmit bandwidth, and in fact any modification at all, was incorrect.  I contend that any modifications that do not cause a certified GMRS transmitter to operate outside the rules stated in Part 95E, are allowed.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Man you all are up early. I'm still working...yuck.
 
The Luiton LT-590 is not certified for any service, so there is nothing preventing you from legally reprogramming it to suit your needs.

I'm pretty sure, based on the way the rules are written. I'm working right now, and need to get to bed soon. A bit later today I can post a snippet of the rules I am referring to.

No question about that. I only noted that radio in response to Hans’ question about whether it could do 20 kHz wideband.

@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.

I completely agree with you from the standpoint of making the decision to purchase the MXT400 on the basis of being able to overcome it's (factory) limitations. There are better radios (TK-8180 just as an example) available on the used market that can be had for 1/2 the price (possibly less) of a MXT400.
 
That being said, the information is well receieved for those who already have a MXT400 and find it not completely useable due to the lack of split tones that some repeaters use.

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."

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

It reads like you are not familiar with how the certification stuff works, but the second you flash the radio to anything but 100% stock... it's certification is null and now a non-compliant radio.  In fact, per §95.335, you modifying your radio yourself is also illegal.  So, you are actually violating 2 federal rules by modifying and transmitting on a modified, formally certified GMRS radio.  There is no such thing as programing it, but keeping it's certification. 

Yes I do but this thread included a utube video of the process which some folks who are unfamiliar with programming a radio and using the software involved could appreciate. It added information so as not be redundant

All well there. But, do you realize that same information was posted to this MyGMRS in this same thread back in July?

Check out this thread on midwest gmrs .com  
 
Tells you how to get the midland software and the programming cable you need  and how to use both and program for spit codes and wide bandwidth.
https://mwgmrs.com/forums/topic/midland-mxt400-programing/
 
I did it and it works easily

If FRS works for them and don't want to upgrade to business radios, then that's perfectly OK.  I am OK with business use of FRS.  Most business users of FRS are casual users of 2-way radio and don't need expensive business radios and the hassle with FCC licensing that goes with it.  Given that business use of FRS is 100% legal, it helps fill this niche, sort of like what PMR446 does in Europe.  Accommodating casual business users of 2-way radio as FRS does helps keep the Part 90 Industrial/Business (IB) pool frequencies more available for licensed users who really need those frequencies.
 
I recently had a paving crew resurfacing one of the streets next to my house and the flaggers were using FRS.  I saw them using FRS and I quickly found them on FRS channel 1 (462.5625).  The flaggers were only about 100 feet or so apart and FRS worked fine for them.  What was different about them was they behaved themselves and strictly used the radios for what they were meant for.  They actually sounded professional, unlike the usual sewer mouth chatter you normally hear from flaggers on FRS.

I'd been using a pair of FRS handhelds to let my kids know when it was time to come out to the bus (I wait out in the nasty weather where I can see down the road, they wait inside. Fair trade, right?) and one day as I'm turning the units on I hear flaggers coordinating on channel 1. I decided that was a good day to fall back to the ol' "waving arms vigorously" to signal the kids.
 
Turned out to be very handy, hearing the flaggers, because the highway in front of my house was the section reduced to one-way traffic with the stop points out of view in either direction. Made it less worrisome pulling out and driving to work!