No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with
the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS,
which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would
accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the
FCC is not that gullible!
The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a
petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do.
This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested
in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of
a false FCC approval.
I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply
any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit
orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front
of this computer.
I hope you understand...
73, Skip KH6TY SK
On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote:
That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask
evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be
allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836
Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by
some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern
technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt
digital noise reduction to hf/vhf data modes will stall
I note interest in adding the mode to existing software was expressed
at a early point in the proceedings ,those asking could see the
advantage first hand . (may of been a Homer S DH moment) it looks
however now, if this is perhaps not feasible , there is a DDS
interface port , but this only connects the MF mode and is in use in
France on 137k ,BW issues? MF takes 98 Hz
I think Andy is right , some one needs to address the log jam your
side of the pond , this not a issue of a local by law , its a cap on
technical development , even stone tablets can be recycled these days...
G ..
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, KH6TY <kh...@...> wrote:
>
> Andy,
>
> I have been told by a FCC engineer, part of the evaluation group at the
> FCC, whom I will not name, that ROS 16 baud and 1 baud has been
> evaluated in the lab and "is" spread-spectrum and therefore illegal on
> HF, not only because the author first said it was spread spectrum and
> then changed his story.
>
> Anyone with DigiPan or any other PSK31 program with a waterfall can
> verify that the frequency spreading is random and not a function of the
> data, which is the signature of spread-spectrum.
>
> Just because someone "feels" it is not spread spectrum does not excuse
> them from following the regulations and those who do not risk the
chance
> of FCC action against them once someone files a complaint.
>
> There is no reason for the FCC to "reconsider" their decision, since it
> is based on analysis as well as the author's declaration. What can be
> done is to submit a petition to the FCC to allow limited bandwidth
> spread spectrum on HF by showing it is not harmful to other users of
the
> bands. The instructions for submitting a petition are available on the
> FCC website.
>
> Radio amateurs are responsible for following the regulations, not just
> interpreting them as they see fit.
>
> ROS is legal above 222 Mhz, so freely use it there if you wish. It is
> probably really good for EME.
>
> 73, Skip KH6TY
>
> On 7/12/2010 6:55 AM, Andy obrien wrote:
> >
> > For those USA hams that are using ROS on HF, I assume that by using
> > it...they feel it is not spread spectrum and thus should be legal. Is
> > there any movement towards petitioning the FCC to reconsider the
> > unofficial comments by them and obtaining statements that it is legal
> > ? Or has everyone agreed it IS spread spectrum and given up on it
> > becoming legal in the USA ?
> > Andy K3UK
> >
> >
>
