• 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.

Using an Itinerant Service for Licensure

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
24,264
Location
I am a lineman for the county.
Oh not a dang thing at all heh. I was just wanting to clarify as I am very green in many regards to business radio usage and want to make sure I have a concrete understanding of what is and is not available to me as I am trying to come up with our communications plan.

Getting radios that cover those high 800 - low 900MHz frequencies is a bit more challenging and expensive. The benefit of using higher frequencies like that is building penetration.

You'll make life much easier for yourself if you stick to UHF.
 

nd5y

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
11,401
Location
Wichita Falls, TX
Is this chart no longer accurate?
900 MHz LMR was rebanded recently. The middle 3 MHz was supposed to be vacated to be used for wideband (LTE or similar) systems.

939.975/900.975 & 939.9875/900.9875 are in the section that wasn't rebanded, but I don't know if they are still itinerant only. Someday I will redo the wiki article if I find out.

I don't know if rebanding affected the other itinerant channels, railroad channels and large utility trunked systems. Oncor in TX just built a narrowband system a few years ago hasn't moved yet but I don't know if they have to.

There are probably still people using the itinerant frequencies on 800 and 900 MHz anyway with expired or no licenses.

There are no business users on 700 MHz. It's all public safety.
 

thisguyneedsabeer

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
63
Ok, so, took the gamble and paid the $205 and submitted myself. Listed a good pool of UHF itinerant licenses as shown in the application linked earlier in this thread, and referenced this post: Need help with programming my XTS5000 Model 1 for some help with the emissions.

Included: 11K2F3E 8K10F1E for analog and P25 operations, respectively.

I guess we see what happens. I'm assuming if they kick it back I have to pay again, and if they do, I'll just use a service. Thanks for all the help and advice y'all.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
24,264
Location
I am a lineman for the county.
Ok, so, took the gamble and paid the $205 and submitted myself. Listed a good pool of UHF itinerant licenses as shown in the application linked earlier in this thread, and referenced this post: Need help with programming my XTS5000 Model 1 for some help with the emissions.

Included: 11K2F3E 8K10F1E for analog and P25 operations, respectively.

I guess we see what happens. I'm assuming if they kick it back I have to pay again, and if they do, I'll just use a service. Thanks for all the help and advice y'all.

If they kick it back, they don't charge you.
 

thisguyneedsabeer

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
63
Well they kicked it back once, saying there were instructions on how to fix the parts that were needing amendment, but for the life of me, I have no e-mail or notes in the ULS referencing what was wrong.
 

bill4long

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
1,501
Location
Indianapolis
I did mine myself. Didn't seem like rocket science to me. Typing in the frequencies into their form is a bit of a pain. I picked several frequencies from both VHF and UHF. Took about a week to get the license.
 

tweiss3

Is it time for Coffee?
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
1,138
Location
Ohio
You should have waited for the letter before refiling. Check the ULS, you have a whole list from the FCC to fix.
 

thisguyneedsabeer

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
63
Just an update for the thread, that application is still sitting in pending. I guess that's a good sign, it was getting rejected, rather quickly. I hope I answered and provided suitable answers to all the questions they asked me in my rejection letter.
 

thisguyneedsabeer

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
63
Ok, legitimately confused, I am filing this for commercial intent, my application got kicked back this time..

"If you operate commercially, please complete the eligibility information, FCC Form 601, Schedule H, Item 1 to provide both the
specific number and paragraph of the FCC Rule Section that describes your eligibility for the specified radio service,e.g.
90.35(a)1 for the operation of a commercial activity"

I am looking at: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/fcc-form-601.pdf

Eligibility

Item 1
Enter the number and paragraph of the FCC Rule Section that describes the eligibility for the radio service you specified in Item 1 of the FCC 601 Main Form.

Item 2 Provide a statement that clearly indicates your qualifications for the chosen service. This statement should include:

(1) A general description of your business or activity;
(2) A description of how the radio will be employed in this activity;
(3) Any other information you believe will aid in a determination of your eligibility for the service requested.

This is my current field eligibility field:
1718202714074.png

I referenced: 47 CFR § 90.35 - Industrial/Business Pool.. Is this suggesting that I need to list 90.35(a)(1) and that's all I need to fix? That would point to the exact rule subset and paragraph, if I understand the question correctly.

Can someone please help me confirm my emission designators as well (they didn't get flagged but I just want to be sure I did them right before I re-submit) - I'll be honest, I don't fully understand the emission designators. I'm not a HAM radio operator, and I'll admit I don't have a in-depth understanding of what the emission designator fully entails. The radios in question are XTS5000, I would like to be able to use both Analog/Digital (P25) on my licensed frequencies.

I referenced: Emission Designators
  1. 8K10F1E - P25 Phase I C4FM voice
  2. 8K10F1D - P25 Phase I C4FM data
    1. For using TMS services on the radio
    2. Does this need to be 11K0F1D
      1. Narrowband digital data, using frequency modulation without modulating sub-carrier.
  3. 11K0F3E - Narrowband analog voice, considered by the FCC to be identical to 11K2F3E
I really appreciate all the assistance here. I feel like I'm learning something and will be better situated for operation.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
24,264
Location
I am a lineman for the county.
90.35A1 is what you want.
Under the "describe activity", keep it simple. "radios will be used by technicians setting up temporary data networks at various locations throughout <enter requested operational area here>".

Emission designators look fine. If you didn't get flagged on them, don't mess with it.
 

thisguyneedsabeer

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
63
90.35A1 is what you want.
Under the "describe activity", keep it simple. "radios will be used by technicians setting up temporary data networks at various locations throughout <enter requested operational area here>".

Emission designators look fine. If you didn't get flagged on them, don't mess with it.
As always, I appreciate you. Thank you! I will say, originally I had my describe activity "vague" like that and I got a rejection e-mail stating I needed to be more specific. I just want to be able to communicate on the road and at our events while working, so I added in as much as I could fit before getting character limited by the box.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
24,264
Location
I am a lineman for the county.
You may be fine with what you have if you just update it to show 90.35a1. They are specifically looking for what part of the rule you are applying under. The description may be fine and no need to change it. From what I've seen in the past, they just want a basic description about why you qualify under that part, and why you need itinerant frequencies rather than a coordinated frequency.
 

thisguyneedsabeer

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
63
You may be fine with what you have if you just update it to show 90.35a1. They are specifically looking for what part of the rule you are applying under. The description may be fine and no need to change it. From what I've seen in the past, they just want a basic description about why you qualify under that part, and why you need itinerant frequencies rather than a coordinated frequency.
That makes total sense. I've re-submitted, for the 4th(?) time based on the feedback received. Fingers crossed!
 

thisguyneedsabeer

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
63
My application was approved! Huzzah! I may have made a mistake though, I limited to 5W, instead of 35W. I don't know how I didn't catch that throughout all my reviews.

What are my best courses of action? Can I just submit a quick update? Realistically, would anyone even know?

Thanks to everyone who provided invaluable feedback throughout this thread. It's been incredibly helpful!
 

RaleighGuy

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
13,760
Location
Raleigh, NC
My application was approved! Huzzah! I may have made a mistake though, I limited to 5W, instead of 35W. I don't know how I didn't catch that throughout all my reviews.

What are my best courses of action? Can I just submit a quick update?
Submit a modification.

Realistically, would anyone even know?

Anyone on the frequency who is getting interference due to the higher power would know.
 

thisguyneedsabeer

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
63
Submit a modification.



Anyone on the frequency who is getting interference due to the higher power would know.
Looks like it's going to be $105 for the modification. Oof. Big mistake. I thought interference was to be "expected" on itinerant, and you just have to live with it.
 

RaleighGuy

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
13,760
Location
Raleigh, NC
Looks like it's going to be $105 for the modification. Oof. Big mistake. I thought interference was to be "expected" on itinerant, and you just have to live with it.
Dual usage is to be expected, interference because someone is using the frequency in ways contrary to their license is not something "expected" and could be reported to the FCC.
 

thisguyneedsabeer

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
63
Dual usage is to be expected, interference because someone is using the frequency in ways contrary to their license is not something "expected" and could be reported to the FCC.
I get what you're saying, and I think we're splitting hairs. I'm just incredibly bummed that it's going to cost another $105 to update 4 frequencies. Lesson learned.
 
Top