The never-ending Part 90/95 debate, and my discussion with the FCC

[MichaelLAX]

3 hours ago, WRPQ991 said:

…a GMRS radio can not be modified to operate (transmit and receive) on Ham bands…

That one is backwards: you can use a modified GMRS radio on the Ham bands  

But of course, once you do that, it may affect its Part 95 eligibility. 

[Lscott]

8 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:

That one is backwards: you can use a modified GMRS radio on the Ham bands  

But of course, once you do that, it may affect its Part 95 eligibility. 

That's a bit fuzzy. The rules state if the radio is equipped with frequencies not listed in the table, approved for GMRS, then it doesn't meet certification. I guess that depends on how one defines "equipped", is the radio designed that way or just programmed with frequencies in both services? I have my radios setup for both since I'm licensed for both services.

[MichaelLAX]

5 hours ago, Lscott said:

That's a bit fuzzy. The rules state if the radio is equipped with frequencies not listed in the table, approved for GMRS, then it doesn't meet certification. I guess that depends on how one defines "equipped", is the radio designed that way or just programmed with frequencies in both services? I have my radios setup for both since I'm licensed for both services.

It's really a debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin:

My Anytone AT-779UV (a/k/a Radioddity DB20-G) comes as a Part 95 certified GMRS radio.

I discovered, however, it is easy to use the buttons and/or the included software to "open" up its ability to transmit on 2 meters, 70 cm, MURS and more!

Of course when transmitting on those frequencies it is no longer Part 95 certified.

The assumption is that when it is "un-opened" to not transmit on those frequencies, it is still Part 95 certified for use on GMRS.

[Lscott]

17 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:

It's really a debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin:

My Anytone AT-779UV (a/k/a Radioddity DB20-G) comes as a Part 95 certified GMRS radio.

I discovered, however, it is easy to use the buttons and/or the included software to "open" up its ability to transmit on 2 meters, 70 cm, MURS and more!

Of course when transmitting on those frequencies it is no longer Part 95 certified.

The assumption is that when it is "un-opened" to not transmit on those frequencies, it is still Part 95 certified for use on GMRS.

That seems to be the case.

I have several UHF radios in my collection. Some are certified Part 95A, the old rules, NX-300's. Those have a stated official frequency range of 450 to 520 with the FCC ID ALH378500. Those are Part 95A. The exact same model with a stated official frequency range of 406.1 to 470, FCC ID ALH378501 are NOT Part 95A certified. The frequency ranges above are what appears on the FCC grants.

Note both cover the GMRS frequencies. The difference is the second one also covers the US Ham 70cm band too. I can't say if the lack of Part 95A certification is due to the manufacture not applying for it or if the FCC wouldn't give the certification.

https://comms.kenwood.com/common/pdf/download/02_NX-200G&300GBrochure.pdf

Also note the radio can do digital voice mode even with the Part 95A certification. Of course that in noway implies using digital voice on GMRS is currently legal. 

[wayoverthere]

3 hours ago, Lscott said:

That seems to be the case.

I have several UHF radios in my collection. Some are certified Part 95A, the old rules, NX-300's. Those have a stated official frequency range of 450 to 520 with the FCC ID ALH378500. Those are Part 95A. The exact same model with a stated official frequency range of 406.1 to 470, FCC ID ALH378501 are NOT Part 95A certified. The frequency ranges above are what appears on the FCC grants.

Note both cover the GMRS frequencies. The difference is the second one also covers the US Ham 70cm band too. I can't say if the lack of Part 95A certification is due to the manufacture not applying for it or if the FCC wouldn't give the certification.

https://comms.kenwood.com/common/pdf/download/02_NX-200G&300GBrochure.pdf

Also note the radio can do digital voice mode even with the Part 95A certification. Of course that in noway implies using digital voice on GMRS is currently legal. 

Interesting question...being under the old rules (95a) makes me think it was more of a "didn't submit for certification" rather than a "fcc wouldn't allow it" situation. There seems to be a number of other 90/95a radios that cover both gmrs and 70cm (my vx4207's included).  I don't know (hadn't thought to research yet) if there were any changes in the certification requirements in that time period, though. Would be interesting to compare the certification dates of both radios too.

[Lscott]

1 hour ago, wayoverthere said:

Interesting question...being under the old rules (95a) makes me think it was more of a "didn't submit for certification" rather than a "fcc wouldn't allow it" situation. There seems to be a number of other 90/95a radios that cover both gmrs and 70cm (my vx4207's included).  I don't know (hadn't thought to research yet) if there were any changes in the certification requirements in that time period, though. Would be interesting to compare the certification dates of both radios too.

I'm inclined to agree with you on that point. I also have two other examples. I looked at my TK-5320's. Its the same thing. The FCC ID's are exactly the same. I guess the guts are are similar enough to not require a different ID, but the firmware is different. The NX-300's do NXDN while the TK-5320's do P25. Unless you pop off the battery pack and look at the model numbers on the back of the radio's case you can't tell them apart.

https://comms.kenwood.com/common/pdf/download/TK-5220_5320_Specsheet.pdf

I think I ran across a post somewhere that claimed one could convert the hardware from one digital protocol to the other. I can't find it now. One of the other posters here worked for JVCKenwood and had some info on the topic.

[wayoverthere]

22 minutes ago, Lscott said:

I'm inclined to agree with you on that point. I also have two other examples. I looked at my TK-5320's. Its the same thing. The FCC ID's are exactly the same. I guess the guts are are similar enough to not require a different ID, but the firmware is different. The NX-300's do NXDN while the TK-5320's do P25. Unless you pop off the battery pack and look at the model numbers on the back of the radio's case you can't tell them apart.

https://comms.kenwood.com/common/pdf/download/TK-5220_5320_Specsheet.pdf

I think I ran across a post somewhere that claimed one could convert the hardware from one digital protocol to the other. I can't find it now. One of the other posters here worked for JVCKenwood and had some info on the topic.

I kind of want to dig into fcc listings for vertex now, and see how many 95a models I can find, and the frequency ranges...I know there's 400-470 and 450-512 splits in multiple model ranges.

The 4 EVXs are near identical;  one is an older display (the vhf one), one of the 450-512 has a smooth ptt button, and 2 of the uhf are spot on identical (one 450-512, the other 400-470).

I'm thinking @PACNWCommsimay be the former Kenwood guy you're thinking of

[Lscott]

15 minutes ago, wayoverthere said:

I kind of want to dig into fcc listings for vertex now, and see how many 95a models I can find, and the frequency ranges...I know there's 400-470 and 450-512 splits in multiple model ranges.

The 4 EVXs are near identical;  one is an older display (the vhf one), one of the 450-512 has a smooth ptt button, and 2 of the uhf are spot on identical (one 450-512, the other 400-470).

I'm thinking @PACNWCommsimay be the former Kenwood guy you're thinking of

Yeah, that would be interesting. Since the GMRS rules were changed back in 2017, were businesses can no longer apply for new GMRS licenses, there is no reason for the usual manufactures to apply for any Part 95 certifications for their expensive commercial line of radios. Businesses won't be buying GMRS commercial grade radios. That just leaves the cheap consumer grade stuff, most originating from the Chinese companies.

Yup, he's the one I was think about.

[wayoverthere]

20 minutes ago, Lscott said:

Yeah, that would be interesting. Since the GMRS rules were changed back in 2017, were businesses can no longer apply for new GMRS licenses, there is no reason for the usual manufactures to apply for any Part 95 certifications for their expensive commercial line of radios. Businesses won't be buying GMRS commercial grade radios. That just leaves the cheap consumer grade stuff, most originating from the Chinese companies.

That, and how many gmrs users will be willing to pay commercial radio prices to buy one new, even if they did dual certify? I know there would be a few, but suspect "few" will be about it.

The other twist with Vertex is being sold to Motorola, and Motorola subsequently dropping most of those models while rolling a few under the Moto banner.

[PACNWComms]

4 hours ago, wayoverthere said:

I'm thinking @PACNWCommsimay be the former Kenwood guy you're thinking of

Yes, that would be me. Ironically enough, I am currently in Motorola training this week as well, now being administrator of a large P25 Phase I/II and Trbo network. 

The JVC/Kenwood Group was trying to gain some market share in P25 radio, while supporting smaller departments/municipalities, and those that may not have been able to afford P25 hardware up front. The idea was to market hardware that contained P25/NXDN/conventional capability, then unlock those features through software when needed/wanted and paid for. The only problem with this is that they also hired way too many software engineers from Microsoft, with little to no radio knowledge. Some Kenwood radios then needed to be sent in for hardware upgrades, as software changes over production cycles meant that several versions later, the hardware was now incompatible. 

It was a marketing plan that resulted in many different model/hardware/software versions. They are most likely out there in the wild, but Kenwood has spent several years fixing that problem, and you may find it hard to find parts, or shops willing to swap boards for what you want. Just in time manufacturing has changed that a bit, especially now with chip shortages. Kenwood has had a chip vendor lose some production capability recently as well. Good luck though, as you may find enough parts radios, or shops that have the combination you want. But,they probably won't be cheap, as the P25 hardware meant higher prices to get back the research and engineering budget spent to develop the product line.

 

[PACNWComms]

I should also add that federal grant money is also only available to buy radios that are P25 capable. This came out after many manufacturers tried to find new ways to grab market share a decade or so after the terrorist attacks of 2001, when radio interoperability was found to be lacking.

So, finding many of these NX-5000 and similar Kenwoods, will be expensive, if you are looking for something that is capable of P25, which may be out of the budget for those wanting to use them for GMRS as well. Although, I do know many people that add an analog Zone, channels, or TalkGroups to their P25 or DMR radios for GMRS use. I do this with several myself. 

[wayoverthere]

56 minutes ago, PACNWComms said:

. Although, I do know many people that add an analog Zone, channels, or TalkGroups to their P25 or DMR radios for GMRS use. I do this with several myself. 

I definitely have them loaded in mine, though the two 450-512 (&dmr) radios mostly do scanner duty.  On the p25 side, there's just a couple of amateur repeaters around (and basically no dstar or c4fm), so more often than not I'll just take something analog.

[Lscott]

10 hours ago, wayoverthere said:

I definitely have them loaded in mine, though the two 450-512 (&dmr) radios mostly do scanner duty.  On the p25 side, there's just a couple of amateur repeaters around (and basically no dstar or c4fm), so more often than not I'll just take something analog.

I thought that P25 was popular in California?

I know NXDN has a big following on the west side of Florida. They have a linked repeater system there.

https://ni4ce.org/nxdn-digital-communications/

Here in Michigan it's D-Star, DMR and YSF. The are a few P25 repeaters around

https://www.repeaterbook.com/repeaters/feature_search.php?state_id=26&type=P25

and one NXDN enabled repeater.

https://www.repeaterbook.com/repeaters/details.php?state_id=26&ID=390

Popularity of NXDN might be picking up in some areas. It's also used by the railroads. I'm also surprised by how many schools use it. I guess it's cheaper that P25. 

As a side note I monitor the local shopping mall and FRS/GMRS frequencies while I'm at work in the office. I use one of those triband CCR's for that. Anyway again I was picking up intermittently somebody running DMR on channel 18, that very characteristic pulsing noise on FM. The signal isn't strong, with the building being a bit of a Faraday cage, it's not close by. I guess we're likely to be seeing more of this as people end up buying the cheap analog/DMR radios and program them up for FRS/GMRS.

A good site for looking for digital frequencies is here if it's registered with the FCC:

https://digitalfrequencysearch.com/index.php

[tweiss3]

10 hours ago, PACNWComms said:

I should also add that federal grant money is also only available to buy radios that are P25 capable. This came out after many manufacturers tried to find new ways to grab market share a decade or so after the terrorist attacks of 2001, when radio interoperability was found to be lacking.

So, finding many of these NX-5000 and similar Kenwoods, will be expensive, if you are looking for something that is capable of P25, which may be out of the budget for those wanting to use them for GMRS as well. Although, I do know many people that add an analog Zone, channels, or TalkGroups to their P25 or DMR radios for GMRS use. I do this with several myself. 

You are correct, the NX-5300 is not cheap, but it is a great radio. It also isn't the most expensive radio either. Multi-protocol is really nice as well. I'm enjoying testing out NXDN, even though it hasn't gotten the popularity. One thing nice about it is that there isn't cheap Chinese garbage put on the air by someone that barely understands what a talkgroup is, and didn't even program it themselves.

[Lscott]

2 hours ago, tweiss3 said:

You are correct, the NX-5300 is not cheap, but it is a great radio. It also isn't the most expensive radio either. Multi-protocol is really nice as well. I'm enjoying testing out NXDN, even though it hasn't gotten the popularity. One thing nice about it is that there isn't cheap Chinese garbage put on the air by someone that barely understands what a talkgroup is, and didn't even program it themselves.

The radios look nice, but I really hate the licensing model they use, it SUCKS. Maybe for business it might make sense but for private use, IMHO, no.

I have a large collection of radios. All I need to do is start the CPS for the specific model series and program the radio. I don't have to screw around and worry if the particular radio is licensed. If I get another one, just plug it and program it, no hassle, done.  It's also the same sort of thing with Motorola. I think Kenwood just copied their business model for their new radio series.

[wayoverthere]

3 hours ago, Lscott said:

I thought that P25 was popular in California?

A good site for looking for digital frequencies is here if it's registered with the FCC:

https://digitalfrequencysearch.com/index.php

Good resource on the digital search.

And I haven't dug around the state as a whole to say how popular P25 is statewide, but it's it's probably not far behind DMR, and well ahead of C4FM/D-Star...there's actually a few more than I remembered when I went back and looked.

I know there's one network (N6LYE) with P25 nodes covering a bit of the central valley (IIRC, from Sacramento down to/past Coalinga), plus the local club has one standalone, and there's one linked to a mixed network (Salinas Valley Repeater Group) that reaches out to the central coast; I believe there are a couple more nodes along the coast on that one that are P25, but it's mostly analog.  There's also a couple others around Monterey/Santa Cruz that are standalone P25.  

[PACNWComms]

7 hours ago, Lscott said:

It's also the same sort of thing with Motorola. I think Kenwood just copied their business model for their new radio series.

Yes, Kenwood followed the precedent set by Motorola for Entitlement ID's for both radios and Customer Programming Software (CPS). I do not like this either, and make labels on my programming computers on which ones have EID's (wideband for GMRS/VHF Marine/amateur use), and other features I find necessary, like Front Panel Programming. Harris Radio Program Manager is locked down to one computer via registering the computer to their server, which logs its MAC address. No adding multiple instances of software like Motorola. Kenwood licenses have been hit or miss depending on radio series......my current job requires multiple licenses for NX-5300 series radios for example....one license per computer, but it is also a custom software made by Kenwood for Confined Space Communications in Hazardous Areas (CSCHA) use.

The next nightmare seems to be "software as a service" and the push to "license" programming capability based upon a monthly payment plan, or pushing codeplug programming vie the Internet, cloud, or WiFi from a distant server, but only if your bill is paid on time. Part 90 radios in the secondary market could get interesting if/when that happens.

[PACNWComms]

10 hours ago, tweiss3 said:

NX-5300

From the heartache of several Motorola people I am dealing with this week, it would seem that Kenwood's NX-5300 series and some Tait radios are making a dent in the big /\/\'s Part 90 radio market, due to the capability versus price difference. I have some APX4000 FDMA radios on a Tait system for interoperability, and the system administrator keeps asking if I can buy Tait radios to keep his network consistent....his leadership wants to get rid of Motorola and my leadership wants only Motorola (Kenwood for confined space use, and Icom for aviation) in use.

[wayoverthere]

I've caught a bit of the 'feature licensing' model with Icom's commercial stuff as well.  Had my eye on a "P25 capable" radio, as I'd like to have the option in a mobile (only handhelds, so far), which seemed like a decent price at ~$300...as I dug deeper, I found out it doesn't actually COME with P25, you pay an additional fee for the license to unlock that capability, which runs another $350 or so.  At that price point, those moto packages on ebay don't look as bad at $550ish.

alternately, it seemed feasible to put together a dual band kenwood setup (110 watt, P25) on a single control head for around the same price, but it's a lot of pulling together pieces from multiple sources.

[PACNWComms]

21 hours ago, wayoverthere said:

I definitely have them loaded in mine

My area has a bit of everything, P25, NXDN, DStar, Trbo, and even some ISM band, but part of that is having elements of Icom, JVC/Kenwood Group, and some lesser known aviation radio companies in the area (Bendix, Relm, BK Precision) and even test equipment manufacturers being local. I either have to have several radios, or pick and choose what to listen to from time to time. My Part 90 radios are probably worth more than my car at times when I drive down the road.

I picked up an old vintage analog AM Technisonic base station radio recently too. Use an old analog scanner instead, my Realistic Pro-2006, and Radio Shack Pro-2032's work much better than a Technisonic radio from 1985.

[tweiss3]

1 hour ago, PACNWComms said:

From the heartache of several Motorola people I am dealing with this week, it would seem that Kenwood's NX-5300 series and some Tait radios are making a dent in the big /\/\'s Part 90 radio market, due to the capability versus price difference. I have some APX4000 FDMA radios on a Tait system for interoperability, and the system administrator keeps asking if I can buy Tait radios to keep his network consistent....his leadership wants to get rid of Motorola and my leadership wants only Motorola (Kenwood for confined space use, and Icom for aviation) in use.

Well, I will say there are certain aspects I dislike about both Kenwood and Motorola current programs for getting programming software. I must say, never in my life have I ever had such a problem giving someone money as the time I tried to get setup with Motorola. On the other side, I got responses from two Kenwood dealers, and the second one got me wideband software in under an hour, (the first was nice, but wasn't sure how to obtain wideband software for me). Kenwood also had no problem selling certain entitlements without asking questions. The annoying part is the free entitlement for KPT-300LMC to apply the entitlements that is missing in some literature.

[Lscott]

3 hours ago, PACNWComms said:

Yes, Kenwood followed the precedent set by Motorola for Entitlement ID's for both radios and Customer Programming Software (CPS). I do not like this either, and make labels on my programming computers on which ones have EID's (wideband for GMRS/VHF Marine/amateur use), and other features I find necessary, like Front Panel Programming. Harris Radio Program Manager is locked down to one computer via registering the computer to their server, which logs its MAC address. No adding multiple instances of software like Motorola. Kenwood licenses have been hit or miss depending on radio series......my current job requires multiple licenses for NX-5300 series radios for example....one license per computer, but it is also a custom software made by Kenwood for Confined Space Communications in Hazardous Areas (CSCHA) use.

The next nightmare seems to be "software as a service" and the push to "license" programming capability based upon a monthly payment plan, or pushing codeplug programming vie the Internet, cloud, or WiFi from a distant server, but only if your bill is paid on time. Part 90 radios in the secondary market could get interesting if/when that happens.

Business may not give a crap about it since they usually go through a dealer for programming and support. They don’t have to deal with the hassle.

Now the dealers on the other hand may not like it much. When the dealers start bad mouthing the products the manufacturer is screwed.
 

However if the end user thinks the radios will have a residual value on the used market when they want to upgrade, are they going to be surprised. I’m seeing some on eBay now. I have ZERO interest in owning one. Just give me one of the older models, install the software, I can program all the radios I want. 

[Radioguy7268]

Count me as a dealer who doesn't like it much - at all.

EID's - where the capability is built into the radio, and then you needed to buy a (lifetime) License to unlock that capability made sense to me.

What doesn't make sense is the concept of needing to buy a Software Update Management license in order to update firmware in the radio. It makes it a real pain when you need to reprogram a bunch of radios, and you basically have to figure out where each radio is at before you can create profiles. You end up with 4 or 5 different profiles if you don't want to upgrade firmware on every single radio & purchase a SUM for every unit past warranty  - even though the customer might have all the same model radios.

 

[gman1971]

Radio as a service is a thing now, and the firmware SUM scam is just another way to keep milking the cow... and for that seems that older radios might increase in resale value, due to being considered "unlocked" as most users don't have to deal with incompatible radios, or potentially bricked radios down the road, etc. Multiple CPS files/profiles is an absolute PITA... 

Also, its not like good radios from 20-30 years ago (like the HT1250, etc) are obsolete anyways. Sure, those don't do digital, but  then again some users abhor digital modes... and those radios are known to work reliably without dialing home and none of the "milk the cow SUM/RAAS racket..."

G.

[BoxCar]

I think a lot of the changes in Part 90 radio is being driven by First Net. We aren't seeing big wholesale system replacements/upgrades from a lot of agencies with the advent of push-to-talk on FN devices. PTT and multicast were always the biggest advantages to radio but most of the comms was still one-to-one. The alert broadcast is being replaced with a text type message sent to a data terminal device either in a vehicle or handheld terminal/communicator. PTT radio is falling into a secondary use rather than being the prime communications device it has been for almost 100 years.