823.0750 capable portable conventional only needed

The General forum is where users can discuss any topic regarding Motorola communications equipment - hardware, software, etc. There are also several focused forums on this board, so please take the time to ensure that your questions doesn't fall into one of those categories before posting here!

Moderator: Queue Moderator

Post Reply
CGRESQ192
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 4:00 pm

823.0750 capable portable conventional only needed

Post by CGRESQ192 »

I need.a radio that can handle 820-870 more specifically 823.0750

I had an mtx8000 that wouldn't support the frequency mentioned

What model would I need model numers are very helpful

Radio does not need trunking
RKG
Posts: 2629
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 4:00 pm

Re: 823.0750 capable portable conventional only needed

Post by RKG »

Prior to re-banding, so-called "821 channels" -- that is, channels with an output freq of 866.0125 through 868.9875 and a corresponding input freq 45 MHz lower -- were limited to public safety radios. As a result, these freqs cannot be programmed directly into so-called "Privacy Plus" radios, of which the MTX8000 is one.

Since rebanding, the "821 channels" are no longer available for Part 90, period.
User avatar
MTS2000des
Posts: 3347
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:59 pm
What radios do you own?: XTS2500, XTS5000, and MTS2000

Re: 823.0750 capable portable conventional only needed

Post by MTS2000des »

you can get an MTX8000 do 821 freqs, involves using that forbidden type of RSS or hex editing your limits in the ODB file of regular MTSX RSS.
The views here are my own and do not represent those of anyone else or the company, the boss, his wife, his dog or distant relatives.
CGRESQ192
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 4:00 pm

Re: 823.0750 capable portable conventional only needed

Post by CGRESQ192 »

How could I hex edit the limit? When I type in the frequency it's using 25khz spacing not 12.5khz thus it rounds down.
Post Reply

Return to “General Motorola Solutions & Legacy Radio Discussion”