The FCC has been very remise in keeping up with their own opinions compared to the published rules. In fact if you go too far too the edge they will issue at worst a cease and desist which you will comply with and add an apology Based on that case you will apply for a modification of the rules. Going to the FCC prior to such instance is like a whining kid running from the sandbox.
On 7/19/10 9:15 PM, "J. Moen" <j...@jwmoen.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I agree that traditional SS spread across a very large portion of the band > would be bad here in the US if a lot of stations were using it at once. ROS, > though we know it's not as good as several other modes, is not that kind of > SS. It has limited bandwidth, not much different from a number of other > modes, and the ban against it doesn't make sense. > > So I don't agree with the FCC approach to their regulations, where they ban > how the intelligence is transmitted rather than the bandwidth the signal > occupies. > > At the same time, I just can't believe some of my fellow countrymen who think > it's ok to pick and choose which rules you'll follow. If you don't like the > rules against petty theft, do you just steal? > > The right way is to campaign to get the rules you don't like changed, and > until you do, follow them. > > Jim - K6JM > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: KH6TY <mailto:kh...@comcast.net> >> >> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >> >> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:38 PM >> >> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 > > > >
