"And think real hard next time before calling the FCC. Ham radio was the
net loser in this episode. We are already viewed as squabbling children
at the FCC, and this type of episode just reinforces that view of
amateur radio."
AMEN.
Jim - K6JM
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Barrow
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS
(K3UK Sked Pages)
pd4u_dares wrote:
> ... considering legal action ... has an apparent plan ... may have
understandably frustrated Jose
>
I really have mixed feelings about how this all played out as well.
While I don't agree with ban lists, I can see where the software author
could get very frustrated at what could be perceived as an attempt to
get a new mode banned.
My observation is that when an "arms length" ham goes to the ARRL/FCC
with an "is this legal" it nearly always results in a "at first glance
we do not think so". Historically, this is nearly always done by people
opposed to the new mode, and looking to see it banned.
Having seen this happen more than once, and having detailed information
on two of those cases, it's the wrong way to handle such a query, even
if done in good faith.
And like most times this occurs, with more detail, and maybe a bit more
objective presentation (like making it clear it's ssb bandwidth with an
audio sample), the FCC Input is reversed. (it was never a decision, just
an opinion based on the facts at hand)
In this particular case it's made much worse by the sparse, poor wording
in the fcc regs.
The issue was not that ROS technically used SS type techniques. Or even
could clearly be called SS using the ITU definition.
Instead, the core issue was: "did ROS behave like traditional SS in a
way that would cause interference and thus was banned under 220 mhz. "
And the answer to that is clearly no. It behaves like many other
AFSK'ish modes that use an SSB bandwidth. Other legal modes use
randomization in a way that by very strict interpretation could be
called SS. Had it hopped across 100khz, using vco rf stages, it'd
clearly be illegal.
Personally, I think it's unfair to compare to the other authors, as they
have never had such a (real or perceived) attack on their software, the
product of many hours of work. And we had cross language/culture issues
at play here as well. This was not an "I don't like it", or "it does not
work well", all authors have to deal with that. It was a "we don't think
it should be used" debate. And much more personal and at risk.
So my view is that we should all learn from this, put the swords back in
the scabbards, and not alienate someone who took the time to create
something innovative, and made it available for use. For free.
And think real net loser hard next time before calling the FCC. Ham radio was
the
in this episode. We are already viewed as squabbling children
at the FCC, and this type of episode just reinforces that view of
amateur radio.
Sincerely,
Alan
km4ba
