Making our own standalone firmware update

[MStep]

I'm happy to see folks who are so enthusiastic about making improvements and developments on such great hardware as the Uniden x36 and SDS series. I have to imagine that you have been following the thread started by "Joe Bearcat" that solicited the same type of suggestions for improvement and future development of the Uniden scanner series.

The only thing that I can suggest at this point is that you develop a "sample" firmware update which would be "reversible". I would not tackle anything too significant-- perhaps something with minor operational significance.

I had made a suggestion to Joe Bearcat many months ago to simply add an option to turn on or off all service types, the same way one can now turn on or off favorites lists. Instead of having to step through each service type individually, one would be able to turn them ALL off and then just turn one or two on. Yes, I realize that turning off all service types would result in a "Nothing To Scan" situation, but this would be a quick and easy way to turn them ALL off and then just turn the one on that you want to focus on. I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion about the merits of my particular suggestion--- I only offer that as a quick and (hopefully) easy demonstration of your skills.

Or, perhaps you can come up with something else in the menu system that could use improvement, do it with your own SDS radios, and then post a demonstration video on YouTube.

Back to the situation at hand--- while you are not a "company" right now, and you are apparently operating as fellow scanner enthusiasts, as others have mentioned, there are some legal hurdles that may have to be overcome.

The very interesting crux here is that you bought and own your radio, and unless your modifications result in some aberrant behavior that affects other devices, you're pretty much open to experiment all you like within the confines of any local, state or federal regulation. But I believe that your first attempt should be something simple and easy, as I have suggested, and more importantly, something which would be reversible. And easily demonstrated.

I believe you will find a lot of support here, at least for your concept. Routes that others have taken here to make some very good suggestions have thus far not borne any fruit. The fact that you have garnered such a response is an indication that there is an interest here. I believe many folks are a little disappointed that it at least appears, on the surface, that Uniden is not in a position to pursue any updates at this time.

 

[gary123]

radio3553.

No we dont have legal representation. We will not say no to free representation or even advice from a legal source . First and most important non of us have deep pockets. Second we are not engaging in anything illegal nor are we proposing anyone do anything illegal. We are simply discussing the possibility and practicality of making our own firmware and the processes involved. We do intend to post control traffic code based on public domain documents and programs with full credit to the posters. Or post Control channel data captures made from again public devices. This last being exactly why forums like these exist.

We are simply a skilled sub group of the membership who are offering our expertise to the community in general. All we really want is a set of guidelines on what the Manufacturer (Uniden) will or will not accept. If no answer is forthcoming then we will proceed as allowed by the RR rules and will follow any directions from the moderation staff.

hows that sound? maybe I should have been a Quasi lawyer.

MStep.

Interesting that you mention as a first step something simple and reversible. That is exactly the idea behind post 11. A simple code fix to address a simple issue. Albeit the whole string decode process for that item also includes a similar boo boo for the site Id. Again later in the thread this will be discussed in a lot more technical detail.

We also have a wish list of additional radio wide features we would like to incorporate eventually in the future. On this last we would welcome input from Uniden supporting software manufacturers. Their input would be invaluable as they know in exact detail how the .xml files are assembled and processed by the hardware. They also know what is practical to do and what my sound great but be totally unrealistic to do.

we are not going to be making promises on this that or the other. This thread will be for posting issues and solutions. Pretty black and white here is an issue here is a solution.

 

[MStep]

I suspect that your code fix is not something that would be easily demonstrable to the majority of folks here. Nor might it be of great interest as this is the first time I am aware that the "issue" existed. If it is a bug, it is something "deeper" than I had suggested as a first attempt. I trust you have read the entire Joe Bearcat thread, which solicited such suggestions?

As I mentioned in other threads, I believe that Uniden has relegated the x36 and SDS series to the "mature" state. There is an opportunity here for entrepreneurs such as yourself and your group to bring those radios up to the next level.

I would also suspect that you have already performed the "upgrade" on your own radio. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. A post on YouTube with the before and after results would certainly bolster your cause.

 

[radio3353]

radio3553.

No we dont have legal representation. We will not say no to free representation or even advice from a legal source . First and most important non of us have deep pockets. Second we are not engaging in anything illegal nor are we proposing anyone do anything illegal. We are simply discussing the possibility and practicality of making our own firmware and the processes involved. We do intend to post control traffic code based on public domain documents and programs with full credit to the posters. Or post Control channel data captures made from again public devices. This last being exactly why forums like these exist.

We are simply a skilled sub group of the membership who are offering our expertise to the community in general. All we really want is a set of guidelines on what the Manufacturer (Uniden) will or will not accept. If no answer is forthcoming then we will proceed as allowed by the RR rules and will follow any directions from the moderation staff.

hows that sound? maybe I should have been a Quasi lawyer.

Very scary is 'hows that sound'. You are considering taking somebody's proprietary software, modifying or replacing it and then distributing it to the public. And, you think RR moderators somehow can give you permission to do this if you do not hear from Uniden? Huh? Are you OK?

I hope your personal umbrella liability coverage is up to date. You may need it.

Wait a minute! Is it April 1st already? Or are you just using RR to solve a problem of being bored and needing a laugh?

Hey RR...you OK with being complicit in this if this guy is really serious?

 

[jeffdafoe]

What I'm saying is you can only make minimal changes without the source code. And that isn't going to happen, maybe because it's a competitive edge (aka what happened with Whistler) or more realistically that it probably uses commercial libraries.

 

[MStep]

Very scary is 'hows that sound'. You are considering taking somebody's proprietary software, modifying or replacing it and then distributing it to the public. And, you think RR moderators somehow can give you permission to do this if you do not hear from Uniden? Huh? Are you OK?

I hope your personal umbrella liability coverage is up to date. You may need it.
,
Wait a minute! Is it April 1st already? Or are you just using RR to solve a problem of being bored and needing a laugh?

Hey RR...you OK with being complicit in this if this guy is really serious?

'
I understand those concerns and have alluded to them in my posts. But at this point, all we have is healthy discussion of what may or may not be possible from legal and technical standpoints. I don't think any laws have been broken--- these guys have just reached out for suggestions and thoughts from fellow RR members.

 

[N8LHG]

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But, I would bet a pretty shiny silver dollar that the code for these units will require a "cold day in hell" to be released due to the encryption scheme used to not only keep the "Paid options" viable and private, but also the encryption I suspect is within the flash code itself to keep this vary activity of anyone making changes from ever happening.

 

[GTR8000]

There is absolutely zero chance that Uniden will provide any support for this project, much less endorse it. You can bank on that.

No way a major corporation is going to allow a bunch of hobbyists to modify and distribute their firmware/source code. For one thing, they are absolutely not going to want the headache of having to support something they had no hand in. What happens when scanners come back to them for repair with firmware they didn't write? You can issue all the disclaimers you want, there are still going to be some who update with this firmware and will expect Uniden to honor a warrantee.

And of course they're not going to want any of their products made "less than" or crippled by firmware someone else wrote. Or lose any revenue when someone decides to add a feature, especially if that feature that might require licensing from a third party such as DVSI or Motorola, etc.

I guess the parties interested in this fool's errand are quick to forget the GRE/Whistler saga when Eric Cottrell modified their firmware. Amusing reading some of Joe M. aka Voyager aka JoeBearcat's posts in that thread, now that the shoe is on the other foot and he represents Uniden.

If you are sending in your unit for the Legacy Upgrade - PLEASE READ

Hi all - If you are sending in your unit for the Legacy Upgrade, PLEASE do not send your unit in if it is in a locked state as we are unable to unlock it. If you have an "unauthorized" version of the firmware running on your unit, I suggest you revert it back to the original firmware now...

forums.radioreference.com

 

[pcman67]

I can appreciate your desire to fix/improve these devices, but I’m not sure what you are attempting to do is even possible. Do you have hardware engineers on board that understand the ins and outs of all of the components and circuitry that make up these units? Do you have a programmer unit or know the language you intend to use to program these units? How will you intend to “sign” the firmware so that the unit will accept it? The x36 line and the SDS line are two different beasts and planning to make home brew firmware for these units would be a daunting task. Also, do you have the insider knowledge on how to support the newer revisions of hardware that have recently been released or plan to be released so that your proposed firmware doesn’t brick them? How are you going get around the licensing fees for protocols that Uniden pays for and passes the cost onto us such as DMR, ProVoice, etc? You’d have to license these protocols or attempt to implement them somehow.

How will you handle weekly RR database updates in the scanner and will your firmware be compatible with the Sentinel software?

I hate to rain on the parade here, but unless Uniden makes their proprietary intellectual property / trade secrets open source on their flagship scanners (which would give their competitors or any potential competitors an edge), I don’t see this project getting off the ground.

For all I know, the existing firmware these scanners use are all encrypted, which would make even patching existing Uniden firmware impossible.

All that being said, good luck in getting Uniden’s help. I don’t see Uniden paying their software engineers out of their own pockets to spend a huge amount of time to assist some hobbyists out in trying to re-create the wheel and share all their intellectual property / trade secrets.

 

[fxdscon]

I hate to rain on the parade here, but unless Uniden makes their proprietary intellectual property open source on their flagship scanners (which would give their competitors or any potential competitors an edge, I don’t see this project getting off the ground.

-
Yep, the only curiosity here is how long it will take them to realize that it's all just a pipe dream.

We are all knowledgeable on software and hardware so there is not a huge learning curve.

If they were truly knowledgeable in these matters, surely they would understand the futility of putting their time into such a project that invades the copyrights and intellectual property of others..

.

 

[btt]

If they were truly knowledgeable in these matters, surely they would understand the futility of putting their time into such a project that invades the copyrights and intellectual property of others..

How so? Please provide examples.

 

[MStep]

-
Yep, the only curiosity here is how long it will take them to realize that it's all just a pipe dream.

If they were truly knowledgeable in these matters, surely they would understand the futility of putting their time into such a project that invades the copyrights and intellectual property of others..

.

I think they are starting to realize that anything involving Uniden firmware is beyond the realm of probability. I'm still interested in seeing a YouTube video of what they have been able to accomplish with their own units.

 

[fxdscon]

How so? Please provide examples.

Are you asking for definitions of copyright and intellectual property?

 

[btt]

Are you asking for definitions of copyright and intellectual property?

No, just asking for a reason why you think that this project would be in that category. If they are writing their own firmware, I don't see how that would infringe on anyone's rights. Copyright doesn't apply here at all. lol. What does that even mean? IP? Maybe by some government definition, but most of this stuff was developed with public monies. I really don't know why you would be against someone developing an alternative to a standard that was developed with public funds.

 

[radio3353]

 

[natedawg1604]

This a really cool idea, whether Uniden thinks so is another question. But honestly I think it really points to the need for an open source hardware SDR scanner product that uses something like OP-25 for the software.

I would vote for the physical design/hardware concept to be based off the Harris Falcon III AN/PRC-152A, which I'm pretty sure is SDR based, and covers low band through 800, and supports multiple protocols and dual VCO.

 

[werinshades]

A very interesting concept. Will this firmware be free or will we have to pay?

 

[btt]

This a really cool idea, whether Uniden thinks so is another question. But honestly I think it really points to the need for an open source hardware SDR scanner product that uses something like OP-25 for the software.

I would vote for the physical design/hardware concept to be based off the Harris Falcon III AN/PRC-152A, which I'm pretty sure is SDR based, and covers low band through 800, and supports multiple protocols and dual VCO.

Please post all the public details about the Harris design that you know about. I'm very interested in this.

 

[sonm10]

I'd like to know why you all need firmware updates??? My SDS makes GREAT!!!

 

[MStep]

I'd like to know why you all need firmware updates??? My SDS makes GREAT!!!

I agree that I am very pleased with the operation of my SDS100 and 200 scanners. The earlier post I made (in message # 21) is really my only "gripe" with the radio, and that is not a serious issue, but more related to a convenience factor of reducing the number of button presses to achieve a certain function involving service types. And I have a number of x36's, also working fine.

I do appreciate the fact that Gary and his group took some initiative to broach the subject and open it up here for discussion. We should never censure folks ideas here--- these kinds of threads get people thinking and interested in our hobby and from those, other suggestions and ideas, perhaps more feasible, will emerge.