It was not my idea. The author wanted the FCC to say it was not spread
spectrum. Unfortunately for all of us in the US, it is spread spectrum,
and the FCC rules do not allow that below 222 MHz.
I am not potentially damaging the hobby as a whole, just posting what I
know.
Go ahead and use ROS if you think you will be legal! You will do more
damage to the hobby than anyone who refuses to use it, by flaunting the
regulations.
73, Skip KH6TY.
On 7/12/2010 1:52 PM, W2XJ wrote:
Why do you persist in getting the FCC involved? You are potentially
damaging the hobby as a whole. If one is qualified to hold a license
the FCC presumes ones ability to determine what operations are legal.
On 7/12/10 1:28 PM, "KH6TY" <kh...@comcast.net <kh...@comcast.net>> wrote:
Lester,
The "inventor" has shown over and over that he is not to be
trusted, and so his block diagram would not be believed either. I
suggested months ago to him to just send his code in confidence to
the FCC, which they would keep private, and be done with it. He
replied that, arrogantly, "The FCC would have to purchase the code
from him". To me, that suggests that he is unwilling to disclose
the code because it would prove once and for all that it was
spread spectrum, and instead, he tried to bluff his way to
approval, even by changing his original description of the code as
spread spectrum, which obviously did not work.
ROS's best advantage, IMHO, is for EME, and it is legal there for
US hams for 432 and 1296 EME. I only wish it were legal on 2M also
and I could use it for EME on that band.
Yes, it should be open-source, and that would end the discussion,
but he has (for perhaps devious or commercial) personal reasons
for refusing to do so.
That is just not going to happen, so let's end the discussion on
that note and get on the air instead!
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/12/2010 1:14 PM, Lester Veenstra wrote:
Skip:
Spectral analysis cannot differentiate between a high
rate FEC operating after, as it invariably must, a randomizer,
and a true spread spectrum system. And a spread spectrum
system does not need to employ frequency hopping. And a signal
that "frequency hops" is not necessarily a spread spectrum
signal. I refer you to the old favorite of the UK Diplomatic
service, the Piccolo.
As I advocated in an earlier post, the way to end this endless
discussion would be for the "inventor" to disclose the block
diagram of the various steps in his encoding/modulation
system. In fact I was rash enough to suggest that IMHO, all of
these systems being played with by hams, should be open
sourced, so that, the end user can have some confidence in
what he is using, and the state of the art can be mutually
advanced. We started with this philosophy with the TTL
MAINLINER-II, and continue it today with many of the DSPR
systems out there, including the primary commercial company.
Their disclosure does not seem to have slowed them down at all.
Thanks 73
Les
