Hi Trevor,
I have already previously stated that a FCC engineer with the FCC group
analyzing ROS told me what was done, and what was concluded, and I wa
asked not to divulge his name. Whether or not there was a report issued,
I do not know.
I don't know of any US amateurs raising any petition to move to
regulation by bandwidth instead of by mode. This has already been denied
by the FCC once, so I doubt if it will be revisited soon, but nothing
prevents anyone from entering their own petition. However, it will not
be me, because I understand why spread spectrum of any kind on HF would
not be good for the ham community in the US in general, and that
"regulation by bandwidth" had its own serious problems.
Remember that the US ham population is very large, and what we are
allowed to do here can affect many hams worldwide, due to the worldwide
nature of propagation. You need to count your blessings that the FCC
regulations keep automatic mailboxes confined to the FCC-designated
subbands for unattended stations (when other countries do not), because
without those, a hoard of US amateurs could flood the bands with
mailboxes, interfering with DX and ragchew QSO's all over the world. You
have to be careful what you wish for! Hi!
As you say, we have been around this loop before, and, especially since
Tony's tests show no weak signal advantage to the ROS wide spread
spectrum variants over the narrowband variants, I think it is time to
stop beating this horse to death and move on to something more constructive.
I think that Andy previously set a cutoff date for ROS discussions on
this reflector, and it is probably time for him to do that again, since
arguments are getting to be circular and sometimes degenerate into
personal attacks or insults.
The ROSmodem Yahoo group is always available for continued discussions
for users of the mode and has not been killed as was threatened.
I always try to answer comments or criticisms directed to me, but I
really have a lot to do to keep up with kit orders for my interface in
the July QST and cannot keep on answering emails about ROS over and over.
I have said all I can say, so I want to leave this discussion right now!
I hope you understand...
Thanks!
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/20/2010 1:19 PM, Trevor . wrote:
--- On Tue, 20/7/10, KH6TY <kh...@comcast.net
<mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net>> wrote:
> The FCC has actually analyzed the mode (to my surprise!)
Hi Skip,
I know we've been round this loop before but I'd still like to see the
report the FCC are alleged to have produced. If it does exist I'd have
though a US citizen would be able to get it via a Freedom of
Information Act request.
http://www.fcc.gov/foia/
I know ARRL's Dan Henderson N1ND asked a couple of Amateurs about the
mode and they thought it was SS but we don't know on what basis.
Do you know if any US amateurs are raising a Petition for Rulemaking
to move to regulation by bandwidth instead of mode ?
Irrespective of what you think of the merits of one particular mode
the current FCC regs are archaic with respect to digital modes and can
only impede development.
73 Trevor M5AKA
