Midland GMRS Product updates

[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.

[marcspaz]

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.

[marcspaz]

Are you sure of this?

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.

[berkinet]

...The Luiton LT-590 is not certified for any service, so there is nothing preventing you from legally reprogramming it to suit your needs.

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

[Hans]

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.

 

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

[Hans]

Man you all are up early. I'm still working...yuck.

 

 

Perhaps we are just retired and have nothing better to do.

 

By the way, get off my lawn!

[marcspaz]

 

Perhaps we are just retired and have nothing better to do.

 

By the way, get off my lawn!

 

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

[jec6613]

https://fccid.io/MMAMXT400

 

Only certified for narrowband.

 

The Btech is certified only for 16 kHz https://fccid.io/2AGND50X1G, fairly oddball for GMRS.

[marcspaz]

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.

[Hans]

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.

 

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

[Hans]

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.

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.

 

[Hans]

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.

 

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?

[Hans]

For those that want to follow along and check for context...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/part-95

[Hans]

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".)

[Hans]

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.

[Hans]

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".

[marcspaz]

Summary:

 

- The radio is not being modified since the manufacturer designed it to be programmable...

 

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.

[Hans]

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.

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.

[Hans]

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).

[Hans]

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.

That is a misleading and patently incorrect statement.

 

[Hans]

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.

[berkinet]

§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.

 

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.

[Hans]

Excellent post, my friend.

[mbrun]

I would argue that is the 100% the manufacturer’s responsibility, in this world of software defined radios and certifications, to ensure that the firmware of the radio is written in such way as to ensure the radio remains in compliance with the FCC requirements. The firmware of the radio is not intended for user modification in anyway. The firmware is how the manufacturer’s leverage the exact same electronics to build radios to serve different markets, achieve different certifications, and expose different feature sets that yield different prices from the public. It is the specific combination of hardware and firmware that defines the radio. If the firmware of the radio allows the radio to do something that is disallowed or otherwise outside the specifications of the FCC, then the manufacturer has failed their responsibility.

 

In contrast, again in this modern world of software defined radios, it is common place, and even expected practice, that radios be programmed by the user; the public. Programming is made possible through modifications of exposed settings available to the user via front panel controls and, if an externally accessible programming port is available, by means of external software. It is reasonable to conclude that, if the manufacturer has done their job, any and all settings that can be changed on the radio are a candidate for modification without affecting its legal usage.

 

While we call changing the settings of a radio “programming”, actually we are doing nothing of a sort. We are not adding logic, business rules or enforcing and legal limits, we are merely changing the settings exposed to us by the radio’s design/implementation.

 

I currently write software for a living. Any setting I expose to the user is fair game for modification. Any value the user provides is validated to ensure it is within an allowable range (where necessary). Where critical combinations of values are material, said combinations of values are validated to ensure they collectively pass muster. In an SDR, such ultimate rules are the responsibility of the hardware-firmware..the part of the radio not intended for user modification.

 

I own a couple of modern HT, both of which are programmable via front panel controls and via software to various degree. When I make the mistake of setting values outside the allowable limits of the radio, the radio itself prevents the value from being used. If I am using the manufacturer’s software, the manufacturer’s software will tell me so and disallows the sending of the invalid value to the radio. Chirp on the other hand will not warn me, but will let me send the invalid value. However, if/when I attempt to use the radio with that setting, the radio itself warns me with an audio/visual indication of an invalid value and will not operate. Case in point... an invalid Tx frequency. In this case, the manufacturer has done their job.

 

So to wrap this up. If the manufacturer of a GMRS certified radio has done their job per the intent of the FCC, the radio will not operate using any setting that would cause it to perform outside legal limits. The public has an equal responsibility to adhere to rules as well. If the user knowingly exploits a manufacture defect and use settings outside FCC limits, they are knowing breaking the law. If the midland radios make available settings to change by means of their programming port, it is reasonable to conclude they are, by design, intended for modification. Conversely, if you knowing exploit a manufacturer deficiency and set values outside the FCC limit then you have crossed the line.

 

Michael

WHRS965

KE8PLM

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BoxCar]

As a former Part 90 frequency coordinator I have to state that any change to an emissions designator requires Commission approval. Literally thousands of Part 90 license holders had to apply for, and receive, license modifications to change their emissions designator from 20KF3E to 11K5F3E. Many radios in use had to be replaced as they were not certified for operation at bandwidths less than 20K and modification enabling narrowband operation through any means invalidated their certification. In the case of the Midlands, the manufacturer will have to go back to the Commission showing the change to wideband operation continues to meet the Commissions technical requirements. It is entirely possible the radio exceeds some of the technical requirements when operated as a wideband radio. In response to a petition filed by one Part 90 coordinator the Commission added the reduction of bandwidth with no change of emission type as a change that did not require proof of coordination.