Apparently it's perfectly fine to break the rules because what the big bad "government" doesn't know won't hurt them. At least according to some people. I wonder if anyone making that flim-flam argument frequents the W6NUT repeater. Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 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 <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 > > >
