-
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.
Motorola GP360 VHF
- Thread starter Wallboy90
- Start date
- Status
C138NC
Tactical Taco Consumer
Its not really FCC approved for use in the USA i think but its great for 2m Ham and 70m if UHF... the CPS is way different... so I'd stay away from those oversea radios with the added description "software will be included with cable" and alot of the time during programming youll get a codeplug error and its going to be hard to find a codeplug to fix that error...
If you ever decided to send it to motorola.. you might not really get it back.. or they would simply refuse to service it if you took it to a shop...
bottom line, most people have the radio just not everyone will talk about what they have... soo think about what your going to be spending your money on, sometime its good, sometime its not.
If you ever decided to send it to motorola.. you might not really get it back.. or they would simply refuse to service it if you took it to a shop...
bottom line, most people have the radio just not everyone will talk about what they have... soo think about what your going to be spending your money on, sometime its good, sometime its not.
firefive76
Member
Why would you get a codeplug error on that radio any more than you would get one on any other Motorola radio? Why would a Motorola shop not give it back to you if you took it for service? I don't see why the FCC would care what model of radio you are using unless it is not within the proper power and bandwidth ranges. I also don't see why it would be illegal to have one in the US. Am I wrong here?
C138NC
Tactical Taco Consumer
Ok your right about all that but reading off batlabs and a few other radio siies one line read sending it into motorola that it would never be sent backor the police gets involved etc. Being its from hong kong and a fake copy of the ht1250?
Ill go back to that site I googled and do a little more research and comparison
Ill go back to that site I googled and do a little more research and comparison
firefive76
Member
It's not a "fake copy" of the HT1250, it is an overseas Motorola radio. Thats like saying that a HT1250 in another country is a "fake copy" radio.
Drafin
Member
Well the fact that it is "not FCC approved for use in the USA" SHOULD be enough reason to stay away from it.
I would think that an honorable ham would want and strive to operate within the LAW.
Draf
Well since ham rigs dont have to be type accepted by the FCC and he used it in the 2m or 70cm it would be legal
Type Acceptance: Similar to certification, except that it typically applies to radio transmitter equipment that will be used in a licensed radio service. Devices subject to type acceptance include: land mobile transmitters such as cellular transmitters, or police, fire and business transmitters; transmitters used in the maritime and aeronautical safety services; and CB and other transmitters used in the Personal Radio Services. Amateur Radio transmitters do not require type acceptance although external HF power amplifiers and kits do require type acceptance.
ARRLWeb: FCC Part-15 Rules: Unlicensed RF Devices
Type Acceptance: Similar to certification, except that it typically applies to radio transmitter equipment that will be used in a licensed radio service. Devices subject to type acceptance include: land mobile transmitters such as cellular transmitters, or police, fire and business transmitters; transmitters used in the maritime and aeronautical safety services; and CB and other transmitters used in the Personal Radio Services. Amateur Radio transmitters do not require type acceptance although external HF power amplifiers and kits do require type acceptance.
ARRLWeb: FCC Part-15 Rules: Unlicensed RF Devices
Drafin
Member
I fell into the trap of relying on C138NC for correct information, that won't happen again.
I stand corrected FFPM571.
Draf
I stand corrected FFPM571.
Draf
firefive76
Member
C138NC
Tactical Taco Consumer
Nice way to point me out as the idiot atleast I try to researcjh on a few things from different reliable sources before I speak. It really wouldn't matter if I was off a bit on some info but I had some parts of it down. Nice way to not correct me nicely and tell me what's right or wrong and just add in something then bashing me and inviting more to join on in. I shouldn't have to deal with cyberbullying here if wayne said the whole site is family orientated. Just my small civil defense.
Drafin
Member
I wasn't "cyberbullying". I was merely stating that I relied on someone else for correct information as opposed to doing the research myself to find the correct information. Then I was pointing out that, after following FFPM571's link that he was indeed correct and I was wrong by stating that he had corrected me.
No malice was meant in either part and no "cyberbullying" occurred in my post.
You can bet your bottom dollar that I do my own research from here on out though.
Draf
- Status
