• To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:

    Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.

    If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.

    To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.

    The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.

    For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).

    This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.

Canadian Legal GMRS with Beofeng UV5

Status
Not open for further replies.

VE1GAT

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
64
Location
Halifax or Englishtown, Nova Scotia, Canada
I've been working on programming the UV5R to be legal GMRS ready for Canada.
It needs to be 2 W radiated power.
I have a CHIRP image here
Index of /radio

features:
weather channel in RX mode
Emergency use of Marine CH16 (do not misuse this channel)
scanning of MURS (not yet legal in Canada. 2014-06)
frequency mode is blocked by forcing unit into 999Mhz range
power locked in at 1 W.

Note: I've tested the UV5 as only outputting 2.9Watts, and along with the lossy antenna it might legal to use it on high power.

Get better antennas: to start with cheap
Nagoya UT106
and NA666
tuned near 462Mhz and offer a slight gain.

enjoy
 

Logan005

Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
118
Location
fort lauderdale
If you use the uv5r you will need to set it to 1 watt as no 2 watt option exist and in high mode is 4 watt's and that would exceed the legal limit for your GMRS if such 2 watt restriction truly exist. I do not know the law for Canadian GMRS.
 

Darth_vader

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2013
Messages
327
Coupla region-agnostic things:

- The UV5R only does 1 watt (low power) and 4 watt (high). There is no 2-watt setting on the 5R.

- Bands are limited to 136-174 MHz and 400-480 MHz (or 400-520 on more recent firmware.) That's all burned into ROM, so it isn't possible to wideband it to 999 MHz, even from the computer. I wish it were, since I really favour the 5R over the expandable (but uncomfortably small) 3R, but oh well.

Are you sure you weren't confusing it with the UV3R?

@Logan005--

If I recall correctly, what we know as GMRS here is basically an extension of licence-free FRS in Canada and treated as such. I don't know how different the CRTC's equipment operating regulations are from that of the F¢¢, but I believe it's capped at ~2 watts across the entire service. This is all coming out of my head and I may be (read: probably am) completely wrong.

I *do* know with certainty that it's handled and regulated very differently there from the way it is here, generally speaking. WB4CS or somebody else who's knowledgable in the legal side of GM/FRS could probably clarify it.
 
Last edited:

WB4CS

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
900
Location
Northern Alabama
WB4CS or somebody else who's knowledgable in the legal side of GM/FRS could probably clarify it.
I'm not familiar with the rules in Canada so I can't respond. In the USA that radio isn't approved for GMRS or FRS but I'm not sure about in Canada. Thanks for thinking of me though ;)
 
Last edited:

VE7WV

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
77
Location
Vancouver, BC
In Canada, like the U.S., frequency agile amateur radio equipment is *not* certified for use on FRS/GMRS, nor likely on any unlicensed radio service.

See point 3 for an example of where such a radio fall afoul:

RSS-210 – Licence-exempt Radio Apparatus (All Frequency Bands): Category I Equipment - Spectrum Management and Telecommunications
A6.2.7 Restrictions
GMRS units shall not be designed to interconnect to the public switched network.
GMRS units shall not be designed to transmit data in store-and-forward packet operation mode.
GMRS units shall not provide the user with the capability to receive on GMRS channels 16 to 23.

Amateurs are awarded tons of flexibilty when it comes to equipment but only for use on OUR bands. For all the rest we have to play by the same rules as industry.

If the Bao-Icom-WhateverSung Model 221AD-Wonder-Talkie could *legally* be used on GMRS/FRS, by *anyone*, don't you think the makers of such produces would highlight the fact in bold print?

Just because we are legally allowed to use frequency agile radios in OUR bands does not give us the legal right to use the same equipment elsewhere.
 

VE7WV

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
77
Location
Vancouver, BC
Hmmnn... Canada might be a bit more permissive -- I was a bit surprised to find this section on home brew devices. Your modifying a commercial product doesn't count as a "home built device" but section 7.1.7 states:

7.1.7 Home-Built Devices
Except scanner receivers, home built devices (not from a kit) in quantities of five or less, for personal use and not to be marketed, are not required to be certified or labelled by Industry Canada. Home-built devices must conform to all the technical requirements set out in the applicable standard(s).

RSS-Gen - General Requirements and Information for the Certification of Radio Apparatus - Spectrum Management and Telecommunications

Maybe if you complied with all aspects (TX power, frequency selection), *and* behaved responsibly, IC would look the other way. Reality is if you do behave responsibly, they'll have no reason to look at you.

Strictly speaking your gear isn't certified and therefore should not be used.
 

VE1GAT

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
64
Location
Halifax or Englishtown, Nova Scotia, Canada
just to clarify.
yes UV5's low setting is suppose to be 1w and high is 4w,
Canada specifies 2w ERP.
When I tested the output into a dummy load I got 2.9W and if I used the supplied antenna which is lossy,
the ERP would be close to 2w.

Canadian "channels"
in the regs the channels are listed as frequency ibn order of low to high NOT in USA order,
therefor when the regs mention the 16-22 it means repeater inputs @467Mhz.
repeaters are not legal
 

robertmac

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,214
I wonder if these cheap Chinese radios are even approved by Industry Canada. Maybe someone can explain as everyone and their dog seems to be importing these radios and not buying from dealers. Are they Canadian approved for amateur use or use outside amateur bands. Some had horrible spurious signals I would like to hear if any are approved.
 

kayn1n32008

ØÆS, I put that shØt on everything.
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
6,143
Location
Sector 001
just to clarify.
yes UV5's low setting is suppose to be 1w and high is 4w,
Canada specifies 2w ERP.
When I tested the output into a dummy load I got 2.9W and if I used the supplied antenna which is lossy,
the ERP would be close to 2w.

Canadian "channels"
in the regs the channels are listed as frequency ibn order of low to high NOT in USA order,
therefor when the regs mention the 16-22 it means repeater inputs @467Mhz.
repeaters are not legal
IC also specifies that the antennas can not be removable, so no the Baofeng is not legal for GMRS/FRS use in Canada, and as stated the 467.XXXMHz inputs are 'reserved' frequencies that IC does not license, as they are being held back in case one day IC decides to let us use repeaters.


Sent from an unknown place...
 

VE1GAT

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
64
Location
Halifax or Englishtown, Nova Scotia, Canada
It's been stated IC does not approve of removable antennas, but no one provides a link.

As far surious transmissions go, the UV5s that I have tested are far superiour to the Midland approved GMRS walkie talkies. The midlands GTX550 for example I call "splatterpusses" are spurious outside the TX frequencies and onto at least 3 other channels, one other channel badly. Maybe it is selling feature for "privacy channels". I had setup the midlands on low power and had the UV5 and another midland scanning GMRS and FRS from a distance. TX on the midlands always splatter at least 3 freqs (except CH 15 "550", the lowest freq, it only splattered 2 other channels). Setting up the UV5 on TX, low power, wideband, it barely came through on the adjacent freq and on NFM it did not interfere.
There's a spectrum analyzer study of UV5 bandwidth modes and the results are quite good
 

VE7WV

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
77
Location
Vancouver, BC
The short excerpt from Industry Canada I provided says enough in:

> "GMRS units shall not provide the user with the capability to receive on GMRS channels 16 to 23." <

That means no frequency agile radios.

Secondarily, commercially produced radios for the unlicensed services have to undergo certification for use in those services.

Commercial amateur radios might perform better than the low budget FRS or GMRS off the shelf equipment but that's not at issue. Quoting you:

> "I've been working on programming the UV5R to be legal GMRS ready for Canada."<

Just. Not. Possible.

(To be "legal")
 

kayn1n32008

ØÆS, I put that shØt on everything.
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
6,143
Location
Sector 001
It's been stated IC does not approve of removable antennas, but no one provides a link.

As far surious transmissions go, the UV5s that I have tested are far superiour to the Midland approved GMRS walkie talkies. The midlands GTX550 for example I call "splatterpusses" are spurious outside the TX frequencies and onto at least 3 other channels, one other channel badly. Maybe it is selling feature for "privacy channels". I had setup the midlands on low power and had the UV5 and another midland scanning GMRS and FRS from a distance. TX on the midlands always splatter at least 3 freqs (except CH 15 "550", the lowest freq, it only splattered 2 other channels). Setting up the UV5 on TX, low power, wideband, it barely came through on the adjacent freq and on NFM it did not interfere.
There's a spectrum analyzer study of UV5 bandwidth modes and the results are quite good
How about googling for the answers... I did, sorry for not holding your hand.


Sent from an unknown place...
 

robertmac

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,214
I agree with kayn1n32008, as a ham you should know the regulations without everyone holding your hand. Search Industry Canada web site RSS 210 and it will state "must be equipped with an integral antenna". Link not provided just because everyone can google.
 
Last edited:

Darth_vader

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2013
Messages
327
"Link not provided just because everyone can google. [sic]"

I guess you haven't seen a certain thread of mine in the "Computer" forum, have you?

And Google, which is capitalised being as it's a proper name, is a noun, not a verb.
 

VE7WV

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
77
Location
Vancouver, BC
This thread should come with a "grammar police live here" warning. ;-)

If we are going to dwell on the pedantic, then it will be our collective duty to point out Darth_vader's nom de plume is of course borrowed from the fictional Star Wars character and that his name, Darth Vader, ought to be capitalized, underscore or not.

While I appreciate well written posts as much as anyone, I hope we aren't really driving *that* road.
 

VE1GAT

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
64
Location
Halifax or Englishtown, Nova Scotia, Canada
just to correct the incorrect statements abound about GMRS antennas needing to be fixed,
it is NOT specified in the regulations, fixed antennas are for FRS only. Any hybrid would have to be fixed. GMRS not specified.

"Pipe.
Smoke.
Put it."
Yoda


awaiting the jackboots to descend
 

N4KVE

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
3,314
Location
PALM BEACH, FLORIDA
The last time I broached the subject of the pain and suffering that one must endure to secure approval from Industry Canada (IC) as a precondition to receive a 150-470 MHz license from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)&#8212;whether Industrial/Business (I/B) or Public Safety (PS)&#8212;the few friends I had in Canada at the time called me saying that I was out of line. So I know up front that I am risking any remaining relationships that I may have north of the border by writing this article. Nevertheless, the process that licensees must follow if they choose to remain in compliance with applicable rules, procedures and treaties is ridiculous at best.

Let&#8217;s start with the fact that virtually every single request that is submitted by the FCC to the IC for approval will receive the now infamous &#8220;Harmful Interference Anticipated (HIA)&#8221; automatic return notice. Simply expect it, as it is the destiny of these applications. There is little accompanying explanation, certainly no recommended technical solutions, and seemingly no hope for success&#8212;at least for the channels requested. It doesn&#8217;t matter whether there is a Canadian user one mile over the border or operating on the Hudson Bay, an HIA bounce is the norm on the first pass. To improve an application&#8217;s chances for initial success, EWA will attempt to select channels where the Canadian incumbents are at least a province away. Of course, this is nearly impossible.

And be sure to never let a license that is located within 75-miles of the Canadian border to expire unless that license has a COSER reference (Canadian Co-channel Serial Coordination System). It doesn&#8217;t matter that there were no interference issues ever with anyone in Canada, the inevitable HIA will result and the continued availability of the channel is not guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination. They got you. This also goes for applications that might move the antenna closer to Canada, add a new antenna to provide better coverage, or increase the power. All of these applications are at risk. An &#8220;increase&#8221; in anything generates a return&#8212;and all receive the dreaded HIA notice.

But remember, this is the first required step. You have to give the IC the opportunity to say &#8220;no&#8221; first. Depending upon the geographic location, sometimes EWA will seek approval of more frequencies than are needed by the applicant, all at the same time hoping that the IC will approve one or two out of the channel batch. Know that this effort is never about accommodating system technologies or promoting spectrum efficiency south of the border. We don&#8217;t have that luxury. All spectrum efforts are directed toward securing IC approval for a frequency or frequencies, and any frequency will do&#8212;just so long as it is approved by IC.

Step 2 is the same as Step 1. Maybe you light a few candles and conduct a closer review of the Canadian database to make sure that you identify where the closest Canadian operations are located and you remove those channels from any consideration. Simply lowering the power as a potential solution won&#8217;t work&#8212;a second HIA will result. Actually, the applicant needs the second rejection, as further application submittals send the IC the message that the applicant is serious about its need for spectrum and that the applicant is not going to go away&#8212;at least not if EWA is the frequency coordinator. At this point in the process, maybe six months to a year have transpired.

This is when the approval process can now get serious. This is when, and only when, the applicant can provide a Longley-Rice interference study that shows that the potential signal strength to the Canadian incumbent is less than -148 dBw&#8212;which, by the way, is at a noise level that only dogs can hear&#8212;within a 25-mile radius of the Canadian user&#8217;s potential mobile area of operation. Read that several times for a sanity check. I am not making it up. Sometimes the FCC will add comments supporting this third showing, sometime they won&#8217;t. Sometimes the IC will concur at this point with this additional engineering showing. Sometimes it won&#8217;t. Then, and only then, may the applicant request that the FCC and the IC conduct an actual on-air test (OAT) to verify the results of the Longley-Rice analysis.

This last OAT effort usually succeeds and one only can hope that the licensee by this time&#8212;sometimes as long as 18 months or more after the application was initially submitted&#8212;hasn&#8217;t asked for its money back, returned tickets to a hockey game in Toronto, or simply walked away. Trying to explain this process to an applicant is difficult and rarely understood. &#8220;You can&#8217;t be serious?&#8221; is usually the response. &#8220;But we&#8217;re public safety.&#8221; That doesn&#8217;t matter. &#8220;But we won&#8217;t cause interference as our radio signal doesn&#8217;t even reach the border.&#8221; That also doesn&#8217;t matter.

Securing Canadian clearance is an excessive burden on licensees and entities that sell and service wireless systems to those licensees. It&#8217;s not for the faint of heart.

Mark Crosby is the president/CEO of the Enterprise Wireless Alliance.
 

VE7WV

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
77
Location
Vancouver, BC
yes, but it does not mention using my technique to block VFO mode
It doesn't matter what technique you use, the equipment you are configuring/modifying isn't certified for use in the FRS / GMRS unlicensed spectrum in Canada.

It has always been possible to use commercial / not made for purpose gear in the amateur bands. Holders of an Advanced license can even design, build, and operate their own transmitting equipment.

But the reverse is *not* necessarily true. Commercially produced transmitting gear specifically made for the amateur radio service, that doesn't already carry certification for other Canadian radio services, can't be made "certified" by an individual such as yourself no matter what you do to it.

This is so self-evident that I'm not sure why we are bothering to discuss it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top