§97.305 Authorized emission types is the regulation that
authorizes SS for 222 Mhz and above only.
73 - Skip KH6TY
w2xj wrote:
Please provide a citation from part 97 that prohibits ROS even if it
were deemed to truly be spread spectrum.
KH6TY wrote:
> In most legal documents, specific references override general ones.
>
> In this discussion, only the FCC attorneys can decide what is allowed
> and what is not. Until then, the specific regulations regarding SS are
> assumed to be the law in this country, no matter how badly it is
> desired to use the new mode, and what rationalizations are made for
> being able to use it.
>
> This road has been traveled before!
>
> 73 - Skip KH6TY
>
>
>
>
> w2xj wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that
>>
>> would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those
segments
>> where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to
>> support such operation:
>>
>> (b) Where authorized by §§ 97.305(c)
>> and 97.307(f) of this part, a station may
>> transmit a RTTY or data emission
>> using an unspecified digital code, except
>> to a station in a country with
>> which the United States does not have
>> an agreement permitting the code to be
>> used. RTTY and data emissions using
>> unspecified digital codes must not be
>> transmitted for the purpose of obscuring
>> the meaning of any communication.
>> When deemed necessary by a District
>> Director to assure compliance
>> with the FCC Rules, a station must:
>> (1) Cease the transmission using the
>> unspecified digital code;
>> (2) Restrict transmissions of any digital
>> code to the extent instructed;
>> (3) Maintain a record, convertible to
>> the original information, of all digital
>> communications transmitted
>>
>> I also do not see anything in the part 97 subsection on spread spectrum
>> ( if in fact ROS was really determined to be an SS mode) that would
make
>> ROS non compliant.
>>
>> Part 97 technical standards mostly harmonize US rules with ITU
>> international treaties They are written to be quite broad in order to
>> permit experimentation. So long as the coding technique is public and
>> can be received by anyone, the real restriction is based on allowable
>> bandwidth and power allocated for a given frequency.
>>
>> John B. Stephensen wrote:
>> > The attachments are a good illustration why the rules should be
>> changed. Olivia and ROS use a similar amount of spectrum so the FCC
>> shouldn't be calling one legal and the other illegal based on how
>> they were generated.
>> >
>> > 73,
>> >
>> > John
>> > KD6OZH
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Tony
>> > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>
>> <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 08:20 UTC
>> > Subject: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS [2 Attachments]
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [Attachment(s) from Tony included below]
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > All,
>> >
>> > It would appear that ROS-16 is not much different than say Olivia
>> 128 / 2K. The number of tones may differ, but they both use MFSK
>> modulation with sequential tones running at 16 baud. The question is
>> how can ROS be considered a SS frequency hoping mode while Olivia and
>> it's derivatives are not?
>> >
>> > A closer look shows that they are quite similar (see attached).
>> >
>> > Tony -K2MO
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
