• 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.

Legal use of XTS radios

Status
Not open for further replies.

Medinaj68

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2017
Messages
10
Hello all,
I recently got a few retired XTS and XPR radios from my department and was curious as to what I have to do to be able to legally use these with my kids? I know that FRS is out of the question and I'm assuming GRMS are also a no go. Just trying to figure out how to utilize these more than just scanning the local Police, Fire, and EMS.
Thank you for the help in advance.
 

N4GIX

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
1,954
Location
Hammond, IN
They would be just fine for GMRS provided that (a) you have a GMRS license, and (b) they can be programmed for 462 to 467 MHz frequencies.
 

Medinaj68

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2017
Messages
10
Oh That's great news my radios are UHF in 450-520 frequency band so now all I need to do is get the licensing squared away. Thank you for the help.
 

canav844

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
561
Ham radio. UHF should let you use them simplex with the kids (they'd also need to get licensed, could be a good learning experience for all) and you could even check into area repeaters with them.
 

N4CYA

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2004
Messages
1,751
Location
GA!
Ham radio. UHF should let you use them simplex with the kids (they'd also need to get licensed, could be a good learning experience for all) and you could even check into area repeaters with them.
This...And the XTS radios and the XPR radios are great radios with great audio.
 

ResQguy

Meh
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,285
Ham radio. UHF should let you use them simplex with the kids (they'd also need to get licensed, could be a good learning experience for all) and you could even check into area repeaters with them.
Ain't gonna do 70cm in an S split XTS with out some 'work'.
 

Skypilot007

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
2,291
Location
Medford, NJ
Regardless of a part 95 certification, 99% of the folks I know who operate on GMRS are using retired public safety gear. They are perfectly compliant with the emissions standard required and are the best option in my opinion. Get your license (covers the hole family), get the radios programmed properly and have fun with them.
 

N4KVE

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
3,350
Location
PALM BEACH, FLORIDA
The first word in the subject line was "Legal". 99% of the folks you know doing something does not make it legal.
Well if that's the criteria, then he can't do anything with them unless everyone gets a ham license. I just find it amazing that a XTS radio can not "legally" be used on GMRS. Probably costs 10 times the price of a "legal" GMRS radio when they were both new.
 

NavyBOFH

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Messages
181
Location
Where idiots grow on trees
Well if that's the criteria, then he can't do anything with them unless everyone gets a ham license. I just find it amazing that a XTS radio can not "legally" be used on GMRS. Probably costs 10 times the price of a "legal" GMRS radio when they were both new.


Agreed. I wish people would stop with the FCC bible-thumping over Part 95 when the FCC has even verbally admitted on several occasions that they really don't care about Part 95 enough to enforce it nor propose new rule making to fix these stupid verbiage issues everyone gets so caught up about. Give it a rest! Like Gary said Part 90 equipment cost 10-15x more than ANY Part 95 gear when it was new. So what would be more compliant on emissions? The $3000-5000 radio meant for Public Safety band and NTIA compliance - or the $300 Kenwood or Icom "business class" radio they spent a few weekends designing in a lab and stuffing into a box?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
3,565
Location
Texas
Agreed. I wish people would stop with the FCC bible-thumping over Part 95 when the FCC has even verbally admitted on several occasions that they really don't care about Part 95 enough to enforce it nor propose new rule making to fix these stupid verbiage issues everyone gets so caught up about. Give it a rest! Like Gary said Part 90 equipment cost 10-15x more than ANY Part 95 gear when it was new. So what would be more compliant on emissions? The $3000-5000 radio meant for Public Safety band and NTIA compliance - or the $300 Kenwood or Icom "business class" radio they spent a few weekends designing in a lab and stuffing into a box?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hey now, the Motorola Systems Saber came complete with a high price tag and a 90/95A certification.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

N4KVE

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
3,350
Location
PALM BEACH, FLORIDA
Hey now, the Motorola Systems Saber came complete with a high price tag and a 90/95A certification.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's great news. I'll immediately quit using my APX on GMRS, & start using my System Saber. I'll sleep better tonight.
 

n1das

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
1,449
Location
Nashua, NH
They do not carry a part 95 cert.
They count as "surplus Part 90 equipment" which the FCC doesn't seem to mind licensed use on GMRS. The FCC has specifically said so in one of the footnotes in the R&O for the new GMRS rules where they acknowledge the use of Part 90 equipment on GMRS and will continue to offer dual 90/95 type acceptance for manufacturers who want 90/95 certification.

Regardless of a part 95 certification, 99% of the folks I know who operate on GMRS are using retired public safety gear. They are perfectly compliant with the emissions standard required and are the best option in my opinion. Get your license (covers the hole family), get the radios programmed properly and have fun with them.
Exactly. This has been my approach as well. The FCC is well aware of the use of Part 90 equipment on GMRS by licensed users. The FCC doesn't seem to have a problem with it provided users are GMRS-licensed. "No harm, no foul" applies.

Have fun!
 
Last edited:

NavyBOFH

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Messages
181
Location
Where idiots grow on trees
They count as "surplus Part 90 equipment" which the FCC doesn't seem to mind licensed use on GMRS. The FCC has specifically said so in one of the footnotes in the R&O for the new rules where they acknowledge the use of Part 90 equipment on GMRS and will continue to offer dual 90/95 type acceptance for manufacturers who want 90/95 certification.

The FCC is well aware of the use of Part 90 equipment on GMRS by GMRS-licensed users. "No harm, no foul" applies.

Have fun!


Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


Thank you for saying that! I wanted to find the R&O you mentioned but have been stuck on call dealing with putting out fires here lol. But I have been told the same thing and that was from the FCC field office that deals with our licensing concerns. I casually mentioned it one day and they quite honestly gave me the "who cares" answer saying that essentially Part 95 is defunct and Part 90 is the enforceable one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

jhooten

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
Paige, Republic of Texas
Picking and choosing which rules to follow is a good part of what got this country to the sorry state of affairs it finds itself in now. The way our system works is that the citizen obey the laws. If they disagree with those laws the work to change them.

The question was asked. It was answered. Some don't like the answer and give advise that COULD put the financial security of those that follow it in jeopardy.

Now, the purpose of the answer was to give the person who asked the question the details needed to make an informed decision. If he knows the risk then chooses to take the chance it is on him.

As much as some of you are tired of the bible thumping of part 95 your constant preaching of damn the rules go ahead and do what you want gets really fatiguing.
 

NavyBOFH

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Messages
181
Location
Where idiots grow on trees


Here, go whine to these sources then about how we need to abide by Part 95 until the Fuhrer of FCC decides they want to get off their bureaucratic, doughy, well paid asses to make a common sense ruling that it seems that only yourself and a literal handful of others have an insistence of following but not demanding a change. Then there's those of us that demand a change and get ignored. The rest fall under the "use common sense" rule which multiple others here have confirmed the FCC even advising.

http://www.buytwowayradios.com/blog/2012/06/using_a_business_radio_for_gmrs.aspx


http://www.km4fmk.com/blog/8R_revoked.html

I can keep going with the links but "Google is your friend".

So please tell me then under your strict understanding of the laws how this computes then:

1) Part 90 service in VHF is 150-170MHz range, of which MURS (a Part 95 service) falls into with VERY strict emissions guidelines and literally adjacent to Part 90 frequencies but a Part 90 radio is "illegal"?

2) Part 90 service in UHF spans from 450-500MHz (depending on metro region), and includes GMRS which is a Part 95 service? Again as point 1, with Part 90 frequencies right above and below them and with GMRS even being wideband still so the necessity for proper functioning equipment becomes even more crucial. And again, Part 90 radios are not good enough for use?

3) Amateur radio falls under Part 97 ruling BUT we are allowed to use modes and emissions which are ONLY available on your much-loathed Part 90 radios. Aren't hams AND the FCC in violation then??

4) By the current NIFOG, Marine band frequencies are important to program into radios for interoperability and disaster communications especially for regions close to waterways. The NIFOG ALSO includes GMRS and MURS frequencies which are assumedly to be programmed into Part 90 radios in those events. And before you start with the "well it's an emergency" line - these are pre-planned protocols which means if it's THAT illegal, they'd change the rulings to follow SOP better.

So there we are. Part 90 equipment is not only in use but by FEDERAL guidance and procedure "illegally" in use on the "wrong part services" by your definition.

I can go all day on this - and for one specific reason. I follow and abide by FCC and FAA regulations for transmitters and stations for a living, including licensing, construction permits, license modifications, and other things that go past "casual" use. So sling mud all you want - your "because the rule said so" is the reason why our country is in complete **** status and people like you are too damn spineless to do anything about it. Those "rules" are the same ones that imposed most of the second amendment violating rules that have existed for years and more recently a president that trampled on his executive privileges without anyone opposing him. So while you're scraping together your next half-baked rebuttal, I'll enjoy my evening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

NavyBOFH

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Messages
181
Location
Where idiots grow on trees


http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0427/DOC-344617A1.pdf

Somehow forgot this - where the newest round of NPRM from the FCC even admits in black and white use of Part 90 equipment on GMRS via submission of proposals to the FCC by myGMRS.com which they addressed the issues without making a single mention of "oh by the way Part 90 equipment is not legal for use" which they had every opportunity to say so in the proposal - read the entire 114 pages and you'll see where they inserted their opinion when needed.

Read on to the new proposed Part 95 ruled where "Transmitter certification" is the same as it was before, that it must meet the designator for emissions, RF exposure and output, and not be "adjustable immediately by the user" be the rules which Part 90 still meets.

If you haven't realized by now - the Part 90 and 95 rules are for the actual operation and administrative side of things, where in the end the physical radio has to meet the same emissions requirements, RF exposure requirements, and "no user modifiable ability" requirement which are identical for both services. The ONLY thing that has been different (until the last few years) was that manufacturers didn't want to PAY for Part 95 certification when GMRS users that are licensed don't care that much, and GMRS is full of blister pack pirates to begin with. Now, the FCC will certify both 90 and 95 if the manufacturer asks - but since that proposal no one has either come out with a new radio still cared enough to ask for the certification which STILL only looks at the user manual, radio, emissions spec, power out, RF Exposure... and then gets a number.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

jhooten

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
1,432
Location
Paige, Republic of Texas
3) Amateur radio falls under Part 97 ruling BUT we are allowed to use modes and emissions which are ONLY available on your much-loathed Part 90 radios. Aren't hams AND the FCC in violation then??
The fallacy with this argument is there is no such thing as a Part 97 Approval process or grants of certification. Part 97 gives certain standards that must be met. Instead of requiring manufactures to submit equipment for testing it put the onus of meeting the standards on the equipment operator. So the answer to your question is No, as long as the operator meets the technical requirements outlined in Part 97. If you are what you say you are you should know this.

Nobody loathes Part 90 equipment. Documented Part 90 equipment properly used for the Part 90 service designated is not a problem. Using it for a service which the manufacturer has not bothered to submit documentation for what ever reason is a problem. Do they meet or exceed that standards of the Part 95 requirements? Probably. So why did the manufacturer not go for dual certification? It would not add that much cost to the unit price of the total production run. So again why not go for it as Motorola did with the CP110M?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top