• 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.

"Fixing GMRS" - an Editorial (AKA everyone's GMRS ideas go here)

N4KVE

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
3,210
Location
PALM BEACH, FLORIDA
I think most of the Part 90 radios used by hams have VFOs. My Part 90 Alinco DJ-MD5T has a VFO mode as well as channel mode.
View attachment 85926

View attachment 85925
A part 90 radio can not be programmed from the keypad.
At that time they had the radio type accepted for FCC part 90 regulations. That means the radio was to comply with the rules for the Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio Service. Devices that are Part 90 compliant include radios that could be used for business and industry and public safety. and having part 90 certification means Amcrest could market the radio for business use. But in order to receive the part 90 certification, the radio was to have specific power limits, frequency ranges, and could not be user programmable from the front panel.
 

wd8chl

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
39
FYI-Sad news is that the Kenwood TK-8180 (and the matching h/h, the 3180) are discontinued. They might still have some in stock, but I doubt it.
In fact, most of the TK series of radios is d/c'ed or is being phased out in favor of NX series radios.
 

a417

!#
Joined
Mar 14, 2004
Messages
1,519
Which problem does this fix?

Having channels like 18R --> 22R can be misleading, why not just add them after 25 to keep with sequential numbering?

You have USAGE -- (4) for every channel, making the page busy, why not just put a leading note that all "CRS tranmissions are 11khz..". Same goes with the CRS-I/CRS-II Bandwidth specification, as they are literally all the same, why not just put that as a static rule prefacing this?

I'm still not sure what this proposal fixes.

[edited for punctuation - sheesh]
 

russbrill

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
258
Location
Sacramento, CA
Which problem does this fix?

Having channels like 18R --> 22R can be misleading, why not just add them after 25 to keep with sequential numbering?

You have USAGE -- (4) for every channel, making the page busy, why not just put a leading note that all "CRS tranmissions are 11khz..". Same goes with the CRS-I/CRS-II Bandwidth specification, as they are literally all the same, why not just put that as a static rule prefacing this?

I'm still not sure what this proposal fixes.

[edited for punctuation - sheesh]
The 18R thru 22R thing is how input or duplex mode is ID'ed on some consumer gear so I rolled with it. But I can just list the Inputs with the Restrictions, point well taken...
 

russbrill

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
258
Location
Sacramento, CA
Which problem does this fix?

Having channels like 18R --> 22R can be misleading, why not just add them after 25 to keep with sequential numbering?

You have USAGE -- (4) for every channel, making the page busy, why not just put a leading note that all "CRS tranmissions are 11khz..". Same goes with the CRS-I/CRS-II Bandwidth specification, as they are literally all the same, why not just put that as a static rule prefacing this?

I'm still not sure what this proposal fixes.

[edited for punctuation - sheesh]
And I could put the note (4) Bandwidth specs under the Transceiver section.. CRS-I/CRS-II Bandwidth column on the Table indicate both must meet the 12.5 kHz specs on each channel.
 

a417

!#
Joined
Mar 14, 2004
Messages
1,519
Couple of small changes and it looks good from here, ship it on off to the FCC.
 

russbrill

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
258
Location
Sacramento, CA
Couple of small changes and it looks good from here, ship it on off to the FCC.
What about deleting channel numbers altogether when it comes to the Repeater Inputs??? No one is allowed simplex there now or under the new band plan, so may be just omit them???
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
3,833
Russ; You have hijacked the thread with the continuation of your proposal nonsense. Not only that you have changed the title of the thread. You are behaving as a child and need to knock this off. I am calling on the mods to remove your nonsense and close the thread.
 

KevinC

Moderator
Super Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2001
Messages
5,672
Location
Somewhere other than home :(
Russ; You have hijacked the thread with the continuation of your proposal nonsense. Not only that you have changed the title of the thread. You are behaving as a child and need to knock this off. I am calling on the mods to remove your nonsense and close the thread.
No, I merged all the GMRS ideas into one thread. I see no reason to have multiple threads discussing the exact same thing.
 

W9BU

Lead Wiki Manager
Super Moderator
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
6,298
Location
Central Indiana
Russ; You have hijacked the thread with the continuation of your proposal nonsense. Not only that you have changed the title of the thread.
Russ did not change the title of this thread, a moderator did. We are trying to convey that any conversation about changing GMRS rules should go in this thread. We do not need multiple threads about roughly the same topic.
 
Top