I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread
spectrum above 222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!). A single spread
spectrum signal on HF may go unnoticed by most stations, but what
happens if 100 (in range) are on at the same time? The statistical
chances that where will be QRM on your frequency are much higher, the
more stations that are on.
Our bands have very limited spectrum, and therefore it is up to all of
us to cooperate in using the least bandwidth that will do the job.
Perhaps it has been forgotten that five years ago, it was the practice
for a single wideband Pactor-II mailbox to obliterate the entire PSK31
segment of the 20m band, displacing as many as 30 PSK31 stations. It was
only after much discussion that the Pactor mailboxes agreed to move
elsewhere. However there remains a Canadian Pactor-III automatic (not
listening first) mailbox station just below 14.070 that makes that area
unusable by anyone else. The FCC regulations in the US do not allow US
Pactor-III mailboxes to operate there, but, without consideration to
others, the Canadian Pactor-III station (just across the border) just
dominates that frequency at will when it could just as well operate in
the automatic subbands with all the other Pactor-III mailboxes. This is
a good example of "not getting along" with your neighbors!
The FCC rules may seem unfair, and I am sure SOME are unfair, but there
is a process of amendment that insures fair access by all parties, as
best can be done. So, if you do not agree with the FCC rules (that
PROTECT as well as hinder), take the step of filing a petition to amend
the rules and make your case, but do not disregard the current rules
because you think they are unfair, because others may not think the
same, and they may be harmed by your breaking the rules.
We all have to try to get along, and the best way to do that is to
observe the local regulations, which have been made for the benefit of
the many and not just for the benefit of the select few.
If the regulations really deserve to be changed, make your case and let
the process of public comment by ALL concerned parties determine what
should be done. The FCC makes regulations only for the public benefit,
and only after giving everyone a chance to comment.
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/19/2010 8:12 PM, bg...@comcast.net wrote:
pse speak clearly into your computer....
have you ever operated in a digital mode on hf with a wider bandwidth
than a voice signal?
----- Original Message -----
From: "AA0OI" <aa...@yahoo.com>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:48:34 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever
just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like
this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO
FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for
something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the
I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done..
And ANYONE who puts "Our Freedom" and "Absurd" in the same sentence
needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you !
Garrett / AA0OI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**From:** Jeff Moore <tnetcen...@gmail.com>
*To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM
*Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to
the fight for our freedom is absurd.
Jeff -- KE7ACY
----- Original Message ----- *From:* AA0OI <mailto:aa...@yahoo.com>
Julian:
I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what
they ARE TALKING about.
If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the
Federal Communist Committee, would even care..
Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win..
(we weren't always like this)
Garrett / AA0OI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* g4ilo <jul...@g4ilo. com>
*To:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM
*Subject:* [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
<mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, Alan Beagley <ajbeag...@.. .>
wrote:
>
>
> But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the
> other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the
> effect that "the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know
> what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF."
I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid
than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to
decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the
cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't
imagine they would come down on anyone who had sound technical grounds
for believing that they are wrong, but perhaps I don't understand how
things work in the US.
>
> ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the
> inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself.
>
The inventor is an idiot, but not for that reason. The fact that he
originally described it as SS doesn't mean that he meant what the FCC
understood by the term SS.
Anyway it's up to you guys. This argument keeps on going round and
round in circles without my help.
Julian, G4ILO
