nd5y
Member
Probably not, but it depends on how you define subaudible.
-
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.
Midland petitions FCC for waiver to allow data Tx from non-handheld GMRS radios
- Thread starter n1das
- Start date
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
I've asked this time and time again and it seems to set off a level 95 BUTTHURT alarm. Folks want to change rules to suit their needs versus playing by them and moving their part 97 style repeaters, repeater networks and operation to...wait for it...part 97 where no rule changes are necessary and one is free to use APRS, all kind of digital voice from D-Star, DMR to P25, run up to 1500 watts of power, and do pretty much anything tech wise unless the rules (and one's licensing privilege) say you CAN'T.
Of course this takes away from the "elite I am special" appeal that some think GMRS has, or their running a repeater network as a business...
Believe me, .mil is much, much worse.
Agree 100%.
My only qualm is the current "do what you want, we really don't care" attitude is slowly destroying what GMRS was intended to be. I'd like to see FRS completely removed from the GMRS frequencies and some sense of order to the GMRS channels. A call frequency established, simplex base and mobile (or mobile only) channels separated from repeater frequencies, and maybe some frequency coordination on repeaters. Power output, FM modulation, and other technical issues are fine ... but the GMRS world needs to prepare for narrowbanding. It's coming, and it could provide additional frqeuencies for the GMRS community to use.
Just my $0.02. Carry on!
nd5y
Member
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Yeah, from what I could find, the rule changes made what Midland was asking for moot. I think everything they essentially wanted was included in the new rule changes.
Should be interesting to see if they come up with a new product.
Should be interesting to see if they come up with a new product.
RFI-EMI-GUY
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2013
- Messages
- 6,877
Uhh, Nope....
This has been beaten to death. Narrowbanding offers nothing to GMRS. The "additional frequencies" were allocated to FRS decades ago. FRS won't be going away either like bad hair, it is here to stay.
RFI-EMI-GUY
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2013
- Messages
- 6,877
It is some sort of APP for Jeepsters so they can use their smartphones out in the wilderness and send emojis and stuff to each other via the mobile radios. Much needed stuff I suppose.
me with a 
.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Like, totally.
From the Midland request, it was for sending GPS locations between radios. For that to be effective, it would need a display. If it worked, it might be a good product. Garmin sells a similar product that runs on MURS, but it is somewhere around $800.00, and probably sends annoying emojis.
I checked the online Owners Manual and on 10/32 it states:
Data Terminal - not used in the MXT400
Now I am curious what other radios use that same chassis.
Data Terminal - not used in the MXT400
Now I am curious what other radios use that same chassis.
KV4BL
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2004
- Messages
- 58
NO! Keep it analog and no more digital garbage! Wanna know what GMRS will sound like in a couple of years if the FCC keeps easing restrictions on use, just scan the five MURS channels, with their non-stop beeps, boops, and buzzes.
While they are at it, I wish there were some restrictions put on the rampant "linking" that spreads like a cancer on GMRS. At first, it was kinda "cute" or novel. Now every hayseed that puts up a GMRS repeater feels the need to "link" it. We only have 8 50W channels which also are only 8 50W repeater pairs. 24-7-365 linking in many cases just ties up more of those 50W channels/pairs with the same conversation.
I have seen this with numerous linked ham repeater systems. Guys in one repeater's coverage area want to have a conversation. They do. They are local to each-other and friends. Guys in another area on another repeater in that linked system likewise want a convo, but cannot have it because the first set of guys are tying up not only the repeater in their area, but all others in the linked system. Without a publicly shared link/de-link code, you tie up multiple repeaters and pairs with one conversation. WHY????
Many of us have GMRS to stay in touch with friends and family. In some cases, there may be spotty or no cell coverage, so the GMRS is truly a lifeline. One of the big nationwide nets ties up a linked system I am aware of for at least an hour or two, maybe more, every Sunday night. Most of it, once the novelty wears off, is inane, purposeless, jabber. Someone wanting to contact a friend or family member via these repeaters during that time is SOL.
The normal linked status of that particular system is not bad as there is not too much traffic on it most times, but the net destroys any hope of using it for anything but the net during net time.
IF someone MUST link their repeaters, they should provide for a link/de-link code available to all end users. Preferably, normal status would be de-linked, with linking via a DTMF code available when necessary or advantageous. Even if the operator feels the need for normally linked status, a de-link code for when you plan on using the closest repeater for strictly local (family, friends) comms would be a blessing.
You don't want digital, but what you don't realize is that you actually made the perfect argument for digital.
DMR ham repeater/DMR GMRS repeater (if it were legal, of course): One timeslot is used for local communication, one timeslot is linked. You cover what everyone wants, plus you get all the benefits of digital.
I agree. 16 talk paths is better than 8. If Cap+ trunking is used, it makes it even easier to not interfere between talkgroups.
NC1
Member
So now everybody has to get DMR radios and go begging for code plugs? Your average user, the ones GMRS is meant for, is not looking to get into the technical aspects of radio. All they want to do is buy the unit, turn it on, and have it work. This is a prime example of a very very small group wanting to dictate policy and if the average person does not want the massive hassle then they have to do without. It's funny, but this is exactly what our current government is rolling out (for the greater good you know) and it is actually quite detrimental to the 99.999%, but our wondrful leaders are just going to ram it down everybody's throat because there are absolutely ZERO consequences for them. The majority of people do not want it and it goes against what the purpose of what the service is used for. If you want digital, then go get your amateur radio license and move over there.
I have both amateur and GMRS licenses. Nobody needs to beg anybody for a codeplug. Radio manufacturers could sell preprogrammed radios that have a standard lineup of talkgroups and repeater pairs and also have the old analog channels as well for the folks that don't have a digital repeater in their area. Then, if you want to add talkgroups to your repeater, then by all means, you can. Honestly, the bands are not that crowded near me. I have two GMRS repeaters up that anyone can use, but once teh FCC says that I can change them to digital, then they will be changed. Embrace the future. Not everything is going to stay AM or CW forever...
NC1
Member
The whole concept of digital just makes things unnecessarily confusing for those who just want simple communications. There is simply no demand from the vast majority to change what is already working just fine. Since you already have your amateur ticket, why wouldn't you just use DMR on that service? It seems much more logical to use what is already there for your purposes rather than make everybody else do what you want.
Let's look at another angle. If DMR were approved for GMRS, then in all likelihood there will not be a lot of renewals from the FCC since it is now not only confusing to a lot of people but it will turn into something more cumbersome and removes the simplicity aspect. Less renewals means less revenue for the FCC, which in turn may induce them to change GMRS to License By Rule which we already have with CB. At that point there will be all kinds of illegal amplifiers, never ending noise toys, and Auuuuuuuuuuuddddddddiiiiiiiiiooooooo on every frequency all day, which will make the service pretty much useless at that point. Is this really the road you want to go down?
Just because something is allowed doesn't mean that it is mandated that all older technology is null and void. All of those old analog radios could still be used. I'm fine with using amateur, but there are a lot of my family that don't have, nor do they want an amateur license. Speaking of noise makers, have you not turned on a GMRS or FRS radio lately? There are non-stop beeps and boops from kids playing the "can you hear me?" game. There are already folks running 110 Watt mobiles and illegal amplifiers on GMRS, not to mention P25, DMR all with AES or DES encryption and plenty don't have a license. Is it right? Absolutely not, but the FCC adding an emission to the GMRS lineup is not going kill the service, nor is it going to be the downfall of society as we are already there. GMRS is not a professional service. If you want professional, non-noise making devices where you can mandate what emission will be used, then the only option is apply for a business license. That way, you can avoid all of the drama and noise of the GMRS (CB) services.
NC1
Member
I have not witnessed any of the abuses of the service you have referred to, everything is running smoothly without issue in my area. I also do not believe there is a preponderance of that type of activity in a much of the country.
The basis of adding to a service is showing proof that it will, across the majority, make it better in practical every day use to the typical end user.
How does adding DMR accomplish anything other than to appease a tiny fraction that want it? There cannot be a valid debate when there is nothing other than a theory of a possible benefit backing it up.
The basis of adding to a service is showing proof that it will, across the majority, make it better in practical every day use to the typical end user.
How does adding DMR accomplish anything other than to appease a tiny fraction that want it? There cannot be a valid debate when there is nothing other than a theory of a possible benefit backing it up.
