I was contacted by the person. I did not initiate the contact. I have
had dealings with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau as a result of
a petition I amde and I guess I have earned a little measure of respect
and trust by some of them. I have been asked not to identify anyone, so
please do not ask again. I just want those who say the ARRL made the
determination about ROS that the ARRL was only the mouthpiece of the FCC
and it was the FCC that made the analysis and determination.
I really do not have time to rehash ROS over and over, so I will not
comment or respond to ROS questions any more. I think I have honestly
said enough and certainly put more time in analyzing ROS for myself than
most of the people who disagree with what I have said.
No more comments about ROS from me!
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/12/2010 5:00 PM, Rein A wrote:
Dear Skip,
This is the second time you post this message about the FCC engineer
Why don't you tell us how we can get in touch with this engineer.
I would really like to hear that from that person and I would ask him
whether the info was for public consumption or "on background"
as used in the Media, "not authorized" to talk about it because of
this or that.
Where does this person work, Washington DC, PA, Boston?
Why is this engineer's statement not in the public domain?
FCC is a Federal Agency , not some hidden laboratory in a basement
somewhere,
privately owned, concerned about IP or patents.
Always have to get back to this point Why is this not published
by FCC on there information outlets?
They publish all the time as the Federal Communication Commission
and not to a private person or a club of hobbyists with all respect
for the ARRL.
73 Rein W6SZ
--- 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
> >
> >
>
