Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Just keep the FCC out of this. They do will not deal with such issues. If pushed, the out come will not be pretty. This was discussed at Dayton a few years out. Basically we either self police or risk extinction. On 7/12/10 5:00 PM, Rein A rein...@ix.netcom.com 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
Re: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
The FCC never said anything that was a commitment. A staff member wrote a very non committal letter basically hoping you would go away. This FCC stuff is silly. On 7/12/10 5:33 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: Unless there is spread spectrum in ROS you cannot use it. Of course, you can use the part that is not spread spectrum, but the FCC is not going to issue a blanket approval for ROS if any part of it is spread spectrum. They are not interested in issuing approvals for programs anyway. They just said that ROS was spread spectrum when asked and spread spectrum is not allowed under 222 MHz, and had the ARRL communicate that. As a ham in the US, you simply may not emit a spread spectrum signal on HF. It is your duty to ensure that you do not, however you go about it. It is not the FCC's job to tell you what program you can use. It is the ARRL's job to interpret the regulations if asked, which, in this case, it is illegal to use ROS 16 or 1 baud on HF, or any other variation that is FHSS. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 3:19 PM, Siegfried Jackstien wrote: That would mean if you would implement ros or similar in a multimode soft like multipsk or dm780 you would not be allowed to use it (the whole soft) in us ??? I think if only a part of the soft is forbidden to use (on transmit) all other modes can be used If for instance rtty was forbidden in germany but no other mode I can use all other modes in a given software So if in us ros hf is forbidden (but not ros mf) you could use it in us right?? Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong Sigi
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
sorry, my typo. It's in 97.3. (b)(9) - Original Message - From: Lester Veenstra les...@veenstras.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:38:40 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? SS is defined in 97.1. ??? --- TITLE 47 - TELECOMMUNICATION CHAPTER I - FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION SUBCHAPTER D - SAFETY AND SPECIAL RADIO SERVICES PART 97 - AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE subpart a - GENERAL PROVISIONS 97.1 - Basis and purpose. The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles: (a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications. (b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art. (c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of the art. (d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts. (e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance international goodwill. Read more: http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/97-1-basis-and-purpose-19857102#ixzz0tXP5hN2q Lester B Veenstra MØYCM K1YCM les...@veenstras.com m0...@veenstras.com k1...@veenstras.com US Postal Address: PSC 45 Box 781 APO AE 09468 USA UK Postal Address: Dawn Cottage Norwood, Harrogate HG3 1SD, UK Telephones: Office: +44-(0)1423-846-385 Home: +44-(0)1943-880-963 Guam Cell: +1-671-788-5654 UK Cell: +44-(0)7716-298-224 US Cell: +1-240-425-7335 Jamaica: +1-876-352-7504 This e-mail and any documents attached hereto contain confidential or privileged information. The information is intended to be for use only by the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail or any documents attached hereto is prohibited. From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bg...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 11:49 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? SS is defined in 97.1. ..Brent, KE4MZ ___
Re: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Hello W2XJ. YOU are a man to my heart, You got it right on. I have tried to make that point from the day it happened. Commitment - consequences far beyond some silly ham radio stuff Commitees, study groups, legal advisors etc etc Poor Agent, what ever his or hers number was! 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: W2XJ w...@w2xj.net Sent: Jul 12, 2010 6:24 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? The FCC never said anything that was a commitment. A staff member wrote a very non committal letter basically hoping you would go away. This FCC stuff is silly. On 7/12/10 5:33 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: Unless there is spread spectrum in ROS you cannot use it. Of course, you can use the part that is not spread spectrum, but the FCC is not going to issue a blanket approval for ROS if any part of it is spread spectrum. They are not interested in issuing approvals for programs anyway. They just said that ROS was spread spectrum when asked and spread spectrum is not allowed under 222 MHz, and had the ARRL communicate that. As a ham in the US, you simply may not emit a spread spectrum signal on HF. It is your duty to ensure that you do not, however you go about it. It is not the FCC's job to tell you what program you can use. It is the ARRL's job to interpret the regulations if asked, which, in this case, it is illegal to use ROS 16 or 1 baud on HF, or any other variation that is FHSS. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 3:19 PM, Siegfried Jackstien wrote: That would mean if you would implement ros or similar in a multimode soft like multipsk or dm780 you would not be allowed to use it (the whole soft) in us ??? I think if only a part of the soft is forbidden to use (on transmit) all other modes can be used If for instance rtty was forbidden in germany but no other mode I can use all other modes in a given software So if in us ros hf is forbidden (but not ros mf) you could use it in us right?? Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong Sigi
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the FCC is not that gullible! The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do. This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of a false FCC approval. I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front of this computer. I hope you understand... 73, Skip KH6TY SK On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote: That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836 Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt digital noise reduction to hf/vhf data modes will stall I note interest in adding the mode to existing software was expressed at a early point in the proceedings ,those asking could see the advantage first hand . (may of been a Homer S DH moment) it looks however now, if this is perhaps not feasible , there is a DDS interface port , but this only connects the MF mode and is in use in France on 137k ,BW issues? MF takes 98 Hz I think Andy is right , some one needs to address the log jam your side of the pond , this not a issue of a local by law , its a cap on technical development , even stone tablets can be recycled these days... G .. --- 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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Sigi, Have to agree with you here. Since Spread Spectrum is not authorized in the US below 220MHz, and since CHIP 64/128 is Spread Spectrum, no one in the US can use MultiPSK since it includes CHIP??? Well, of course, that isn't the case. Logic would have to prevail, but with the negativity towards ROS, everyone in the US would be better off just staying away from it except about 220MHz. Dave K3DCW On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de wrote: That would mean if you would implement ros or similar in a multimode soft like multipsk or dm780 you would not be allowed to use it (the whole soft) in us ??? I think if only a part of the soft is forbidden to use (on transmit) all other modes can be used If for instance rtty was forbidden in germany but no other mode I can use all other modes in a given software So if in us ros hf is forbidden (but not ros mf) you could use it in us … right?? Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong Sigi -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net Real radio bounces off of the sky
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Hi Dave, Why don't we try to meet this thing head on, instead of saying too difficult, too boring, fed up and tired of talking, thinking about it. Please lets move on, there are other digital methods, why not just use those? 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Dave Wright hfradio...@gmail.com Sent: Jul 12, 2010 7:25 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? Sigi, Have to agree with you here. Since Spread Spectrum is not authorized in the US below 220MHz, and since CHIP 64/128 is Spread Spectrum, no one in the US can use MultiPSK since it includes CHIP??? Well, of course, that isn't the case. Logic would have to prevail, but with the negativity towards ROS, everyone in the US would be better off just staying away from it except about 220MHz. Dave K3DCW On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de wrote: That would mean if you would implement ros or similar in a multimode soft like multipsk or dm780 you would not be allowed to use it (the whole soft) in us ??? I think if only a part of the soft is forbidden to use (on transmit) all other modes can be used If for instance rtty was forbidden in germany but no other mode I can use all other modes in a given software So if in us ros hf is forbidden (but not ros mf) you could use it in us … right?? Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong Sigi -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net Real radio bounces off of the sky
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
I'm all for itI've been anti-ROS since I read the Spread Spectrum description in the original documentation. My point, and Siegfried's as well, is that you can't say that a whole multi-mode package is illegal simply because one mode in it is illegal. I think that is fairly supportive of all of the other LEGAL modes out there, of which there are dozens! Dave On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 3:39 PM, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Hi Dave, Why don't we try to meet this thing head on, instead of saying too difficult, too boring, fed up and tired of talking, thinking about it. Please lets move on, there are other digital methods, why not just use those? 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Dave Wright hfradio...@gmail.com hfradiopro%40gmail.com Sent: Jul 12, 2010 7:25 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? Sigi, Have to agree with you here. Since Spread Spectrum is not authorized in the US below 220MHz, and since CHIP 64/128 is Spread Spectrum, no one in the US can use MultiPSK since it includes CHIP??? Well, of course, that isn't the case. Logic would have to prevail, but with the negativity towards ROS, everyone in the US would be better off just staying away from it except about 220MHz. Dave K3DCW On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de siegfried.jackstien%40freenet.de wrote: That would mean if you would implement ros or similar in a multimode soft like multipsk or dm780 you would not be allowed to use it (the whole soft) in us ??? I think if only a part of the soft is forbidden to use (on transmit) all other modes can be used If for instance rtty was forbidden in germany but no other mode I can use all other modes in a given software So if in us ros hf is forbidden (but not ros mf) you could use it in us … right?? Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong Sigi -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net Real radio bounces off of the sky -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net Real radio bounces off of the sky
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Skip, I have a lot of respect for you and appreciated every time you emailed me. Honest. Went yesterday through all messages on ROSMODEM and got the idea of some anti biases built in here and there. Almost from day in. You have numerous messages about US ROS use and I sense it. Sure I have a bias the other way, difference though, ROS is not my program. Even more interesting as far as Jose goes I might be his biggest enemy in the universe. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Sent: Jul 12, 2010 3:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the FCC is not that gullible! The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do. This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of a false FCC approval. I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front of this computer. I hope you understand... 73, Skip KH6TY SK On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote: That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836 Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt digital noise reduction to hf/vhf data modes will stall I note interest in adding the mode to existing software was expressed at a early point in the proceedings ,those asking could see the advantage first hand . (may of been a Homer S DH moment) it looks however now, if this is perhaps not feasible , there is a DDS interface port , but this only connects the MF mode and is in use in France on 137k ,BW issues? MF takes 98 Hz I think Andy is right , some one needs to address the log jam your side of the pond , this not a issue of a local by law , its a cap on technical development , even stone tablets can be recycled these days... G .. --- 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
Re: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Sigi You in Germany and perhaps others in Spain, Italy, France, UK, Russia should stop using ROS until Jose fixes this problem . I am sure he is sensitive to that and will respond to a temporary boycott. One should be able to do this via the amateur radio organizations, DARC. RSGB etc They send out newsletters, get out the word so that Jose wil listen. I do not think ARRL will respond, fof them it is easy, ROS is illegal to use, so why should we getting involved? 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de Sent: Jul 12, 2010 7:19 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? That would mean if you would implement ros or similar in a multimode soft like multipsk or dm780 you would not be allowed to use it (the whole soft) in us ??? I think if only a part of the soft is forbidden to use (on transmit) all other modes can be used If for instance rtty was forbidden in germany but no other mode I can use all other modes in a given software So if in us ros hf is forbidden (but not ros mf) you could use it in us . right?? Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong Sigi
Re: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Unless there is spread spectrum in ROS you cannot use it. Of course, you can use the part that is not spread spectrum, but the FCC is not going to issue a blanket approval for ROS if any part of it is spread spectrum. They are not interested in issuing approvals for programs anyway. They just said that ROS was spread spectrum when asked and spread spectrum is not allowed under 222 MHz, and had the ARRL communicate that. As a ham in the US, you simply may not emit a spread spectrum signal on HF. It is your duty to ensure that you do not, however you go about it. It is not the FCC's job to tell you what program you can use. It is the ARRL's job to interpret the regulations if asked, which, in this case, it is illegal to use ROS 16 or 1 baud on HF, or any other variation that is FHSS. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 3:19 PM, Siegfried Jackstien wrote: That would mean if you would implement ros or similar in a multimode soft like multipsk or dm780 you would not be allowed to use it (the whole soft) in us ??? I think if only a part of the soft is forbidden to use (on transmit) all other modes can be used If for instance rtty was forbidden in germany but no other mode I can use all other modes in a given software So if in us ros hf is forbidden (but not ros mf) you could use it in us ... right?? Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong Sigi
AW: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
I was begging onb my knees that jose will Stopp the autospotting cause that made a lot of trouble I said that we all should stop the adif in a firewall . maybe THAT will bring jose to think But if he has made a decision there is almost no way to change his thoughts I do not know if boycott will help . but stopping adif is boycott on the spots .
[digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Rein, Yes I was aware of those issues .. I never really did agree with the frenzy of auto spotting any digital mode, gave me a gold fish bowl feeling, but that is the modern twitter way (of which I'm not part of)of doing things .. friends on face book , the number of video views , game score's there are now app's that enhance all of these .. what happen here reflected the outside world .. the attack on the server from EU is also a new (to us) Phenomena .. Im not quite sure exactly what we have all witnessed ? looking at V-1 , the link to ham spots has been removed and in the ADIF area there now is a option to send spots .. I note on the hamspot page there is a ros page which shows by red dot, spots sent from the software. I understood that the 'www' aspect you have described, was now in effect closed and the lingering argument was based purely on technical definitions and possibly as you recently posted, other factors not quite in the public domain. ?? 73 -G . --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rein A rein...@... wrote: Hi Graham, ROS software is transmitting a large quantity of messages many fake, some will say illegal, every time your software if turned on, and received a message from a radio amatuer with his own call or a borrowed callsign. This was discovered due to my questioning where US calls came from and what they represented on this logger. http://www.hampspots.net/ in Australia. The owner has made changes and is in conflict now with the ROS author. ROS author wants to see ROS section closed down on Netspots.net zodat we do not can see this happening any longer. (more to it ) Both on this yahoo board and the ROS modem board you can find details of this since last Friday when this was discovered not by me though. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, graham787 g0nbd@ wrote: Rein, I'm reading this last post , but something is missing , what problem is Jose supposed to fix ? On what ground's should the rest of the world stop using the mode ? My license allows me to transmit mfsk , makes no reference to how the frequency steps are generated and expressly forbids transmissions in code or cypher and as Ros-1 is freely available (for now) the secret aspect is not applicable I think , it has been reasonably established , that the catch 22o clause is historic, bandwidth lead and has been overtaken by technology. Lester ,posted quite a viable path to resolve the problem.. very little in engineering is back and white , Lester's post is suitably Gray to split opinions .. and that's all it needs ..a new common ground .. a way out for all involved. There is nothing 'we' The old world can do in support of the situation , on the contrary, perhaps the apparent exclusion of the middle of the 'new world' from technological advancement may add leverage ? 73 -G . --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, rein0zn@ wrote: Sigi You in Germany and perhaps others in Spain, Italy, France, UK, Russia should stop using ROS until Jose fixes this problem . I am sure he is sensitive to that and will respond to a temporary boycott. One should be able to do this via the amateur radio organizations, DARC. RSGB etc They send out newsletters, get out the word so that Jose wil listen. I do not think ARRL will respond, fof them it is easy, ROS is illegal to use, so why should we getting involved? 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackstien@ Sent: Jul 12, 2010 7:19 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? That would mean if you would implement ros or similar in a multimode soft like multipsk or dm780 you would not be allowed to use it (the whole soft) in us ??? I think if only a part of the soft is forbidden to use (on transmit) all other modes can be used If for instance rtty was forbidden in germany but no other mode I can use all other modes in a given software So if in us ros hf is forbidden (but not ros mf) you could use it in us . right?? Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong Sigi
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
I'm can understand how Garrett feels -- I felt something similar when we were all using the Melp codec for FDMDV on HF, and the owners of Melp kind of knew about it but since no one was trying to make money from it (we are amateurs and not in it for the money), they turned a blind eye to what we all were doing. But one of us just had to get an official answer from the Melp rights holder about our usage. Once officially asked, of course, they had to state that we had no right to use it. Melp usage went to zero in about three days. On the other hand, this ROS thing is a lot simpler. Forget the FCC. Here in the US, we also believe in doing the right thing and following the law, even if we are simultaneously trying to get the law changed. Unfortunately (and stupidly, in my opinion, since it should be bandwidth, not technique that's important), SS is not allowed in US jurisdictions below 220. Before all this stuff hit the fan, the author claimed it was SS, and various spectrum tests appear to back that up. So as a US ham, I'm not planning to use it, particularly since we have lots of data to show other solutions are either as good or better. In my opinion, my not using it is the right thing for me to do. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: AA0OI To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? HI: I Just have one question... HOW THE HELL OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE ?!! Grow Up, and let it die..You have all stabbed it enought to kill it 20 times over.. The only problem with this mode is that you all have to run and ask Uncle FCC what do we do , what do we do ? If everyone would just shut the hell up and use the mode and not whine like a 12 year old girl, the FCC would not even know that it existed or EVEN CARE !! Ham Radio is AMATEUR RADIO--- NOT PROFESSIONAL...Some of its use is for EXPERIMENTATION (if not we'd all be using spark-gap radios today !!! So THANKS for screwing ROS up for the rest of us that don't need Big Brothers permission to pee in the night.. And next time a new mode comes out... PLEASE just stay the hell away from it and go do something like PSK31or something else that you already have Permission to use from Uncle Government !! Its better to ask forgiveness,, because you'll never get permission and American : Thomas Jefferson Garrett / AA0OI -- From: rein...@ix.netcom.com rein...@ix.netcom.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 2:52:47 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? Skip, I have a lot of respect for you and appreciated every time you emailed me. Honest. Went yesterday through all messages on ROSMODEM and got the idea of some anti biases built in here and there. Almost from day in. You have numerous messages about US ROS use and I sense it. Sure I have a bias the other way, difference though, ROS is not my program. Even more interesting as far as Jose goes I might be his biggest enemy in the universe. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Sent: Jul 12, 2010 3:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the FCC is not that gullible! The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do. This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of a false FCC approval. I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front of this computer. I hope you understand... 73, Skip KH6TY SK On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote: That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836 Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt digital noise reduction to hf/vhf data modes will stall I note interest in adding the mode
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Hear, hear rgrds Craig kq6i -Original Message- From: AA0OI [mailto:aa...@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:52 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? HI: I Just have one question... HOW THE HELL OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE ?!! Grow Up, and let it die..You have all stabbed it enought to kill it 20 times over.. The only problem with this mode is that you all have to run and ask Uncle FCC what do we do , what do we do ? If everyone would just shut the hell up and use the mode and not whine like a 12 year old girl, the FCC would not even know that it existed or EVEN CARE !! Ham Radio is AMATEUR RADIO--- NOT PROFESSIONAL...Some of its use is for EXPERIMENTATION (if not we'd all be using spark-gap radios today !!! So THANKS for screwing ROS up for the rest of us that don't need Big Brothers permission to pee in the night.. And next time a new mode comes out... PLEASE just stay the hell away from it and go do something like PSK31or something else that you already have Permission to use from Uncle Government !! Its better to ask forgiveness,, because you'll never get permission and American : Thomas Jefferson Garrett / AA0OI http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/47.gif From: rein...@ix.netcom.com rein...@ix.netcom.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 2:52:47 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? Skip, I have a lot of respect for you and appreciated every time you emailed me. Honest. Went yesterday through all messages on ROSMODEM and got the idea of some anti biases built in here and there. Almost from day in. You have numerous messages about US ROS use and I sense it. Sure I have a bias the other way, difference though, ROS is not my program. Even more interesting as far as Jose goes I might be his biggest enemy in the universe. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net Sent: Jul 12, 2010 3:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the FCC is not that gullible! The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do. This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of a false FCC approval. I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front of this computer. I hope you understand... 73, Skip KH6TY SK On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote: That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836 Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt digital noise reduction to hf/vhf data modes will stall I note interest in adding the mode to existing software was expressed at a early point in the proceedings ,those asking could see the advantage first hand . (may of been a Homer S DH moment) it looks however now, if this is perhaps not feasible , there is a DDS interface port , but this only connects the MF mode and is in use in France on 137k ,BW issues? MF takes 98 Hz I think Andy is right , some one needs to address the log jam your side of the pond , this not a issue of a local by law , its a cap on technical development , even stone tablets can be recycled these days... G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.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
[digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Greg is using ROS. I have logged him. Of course he is living in the North West far away from the government. And Graig, I did not suggest an nice older person to go and ask. That were others who wanted it to die. 73 Rein W6sz --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, k...@... wrote: Hear, hear rgrds Craig kq6i -Original Message- From: AA0OI [mailto:aa...@...] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:52 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? HI: I Just have one question... HOW THE HELL OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE ?!! Grow Up, and let it die..You have all stabbed it enought to kill it 20 times over.. The only problem with this mode is that you all have to run and ask Uncle FCC what do we do , what do we do ? If everyone would just shut the hell up and use the mode and not whine like a 12 year old girl, the FCC would not even know that it existed or EVEN CARE !! Ham Radio is AMATEUR RADIO--- NOT PROFESSIONAL...Some of its use is for EXPERIMENTATION (if not we'd all be using spark-gap radios today !!! So THANKS for screwing ROS up for the rest of us that don't need Big Brothers permission to pee in the night.. And next time a new mode comes out... PLEASE just stay the hell away from it and go do something like PSK31or something else that you already have Permission to use from Uncle Government !! Its better to ask forgiveness,, because you'll never get permission and American : Thomas Jefferson Garrett / AA0OI http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/47.gif From: rein...@... rein...@... To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 2:52:47 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? Skip, I have a lot of respect for you and appreciated every time you emailed me. Honest. Went yesterday through all messages on ROSMODEM and got the idea of some anti biases built in here and there. Almost from day in. You have numerous messages about US ROS use and I sense it. Sure I have a bias the other way, difference though, ROS is not my program. Even more interesting as far as Jose goes I might be his biggest enemy in the universe. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: KH6TY kh...@... mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net Sent: Jul 12, 2010 3:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the FCC is not that gullible! The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do. This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of a false FCC approval. I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front of this computer. I hope you understand... 73, Skip KH6TY SK On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote: That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836 Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt digital noise reduction to hf/vhf data modes will stall I note interest in adding the mode to existing software was expressed at a early point in the proceedings ,those asking could see the advantage first hand . (may of been a Homer S DH moment) it looks however now, if this is perhaps not feasible , there is a DDS interface port , but this only connects the MF mode and is in use in France on 137k ,BW issues? MF takes 98 Hz I think Andy is right , some one needs to address the log jam your side of the pond , this not a issue of a local by law , its a cap on technical development , even stone tablets can be recycled these days... G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh6ty@ 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
[digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Greg is using ROS. I have logged him. Of course he is living in the North West far away from the government. And Graig, I did not suggest an nice older person to go and ask. That were others who wanted it to die. 73 Rein W6sz --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, k...@... wrote: Hear, hear rgrds Craig kq6i -Original Message- From: AA0OI [mailto:aa...@...] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:52 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? HI: I Just have one question... HOW THE HELL OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE ?!! Grow Up, and let it die..You have all stabbed it enought to kill it 20 times over.. The only problem with this mode is that you all have to run and ask Uncle FCC what do we do , what do we do ? If everyone would just shut the hell up and use the mode and not whine like a 12 year old girl, the FCC would not even know that it existed or EVEN CARE !! Ham Radio is AMATEUR RADIO--- NOT PROFESSIONAL...Some of its use is for EXPERIMENTATION (if not we'd all be using spark-gap radios today !!! So THANKS for screwing ROS up for the rest of us that don't need Big Brothers permission to pee in the night.. And next time a new mode comes out... PLEASE just stay the hell away from it and go do something like PSK31or something else that you already have Permission to use from Uncle Government !! Its better to ask forgiveness,, because you'll never get permission and American : Thomas Jefferson Garrett / AA0OI http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/47.gif From: rein...@... rein...@... To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 2:52:47 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? Skip, I have a lot of respect for you and appreciated every time you emailed me. Honest. Went yesterday through all messages on ROSMODEM and got the idea of some anti biases built in here and there. Almost from day in. You have numerous messages about US ROS use and I sense it. Sure I have a bias the other way, difference though, ROS is not my program. Even more interesting as far as Jose goes I might be his biggest enemy in the universe. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: KH6TY kh...@... mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net Sent: Jul 12, 2010 3:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the FCC is not that gullible! The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do. This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of a false FCC approval. I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front of this computer. I hope you understand... 73, Skip KH6TY SK On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote: That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836 Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt digital noise reduction to hf/vhf data modes will stall I note interest in adding the mode to existing software was expressed at a early point in the proceedings ,those asking could see the advantage first hand . (may of been a Homer S DH moment) it looks however now, if this is perhaps not feasible , there is a DDS interface port , but this only connects the MF mode and is in use in France on 137k ,BW issues? MF takes 98 Hz I think Andy is right , some one needs to address the log jam your side of the pond , this not a issue of a local by law , its a cap on technical development , even stone tablets can be recycled these days... G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh6ty@ 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
Re: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
I have been followed this character Ros from the start. Sorry to say , but I'm not surprised at all . This fits in with his odd but fascinating personality. LA5VNA Steinar On 12.07.2010 23:38, Siegfried Jackstien wrote: I was begging onb my knees that jose will Stopp the autospotting cause that made a lot of trouble I said that we all should stop the adif in a firewall . maybe THAT will bring jose to think But if he has made a decision there is almost no way to change his thoughts I do not know if boycott will help . but stopping adif is boycott on the spots .
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Jefferson did make that quote. Grace Hopper did: http://thinkexist.com/quotation/it-is-often-easier-to-ask-for-forgiveness-than-to/378343.html The ARRL only quoted the FCC who quoted Jose. Does not seem like anyone in authority opined on ROS software. The FCC cares about what comes out of my radio. Yours too. Doesn't care how it got in the radio. SS is defined in 97.1. Emission types and useage are from about 97.300 to 97.311. The easiest way to get to the Code of Federal Regulations is thru the FAA website. Until somebody can demonstrate to the FCC that it's not SS, it is and restricted as such. Won't be me. Brent, KE4MZ (after long absence, I hope to appear in a few logs again.) - Original Message - From: Rein A rein...@ix.netcom.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 5:10:04 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? Greg is using ROS. I have logged him. Of course he is living in the North West far away from the government. And Graig, I did not suggest an nice older person to go and ask. That were others who wanted it to die. 73 Rein W6sz --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, k...@... wrote: Hear, hear rgrds Craig kq6i -Original Message- From: AA0OI [mailto:aa...@...] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:52 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? HI: I Just have one question... HOW THE HELL OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE ?!! Grow Up, and let it die..You have all stabbed it enought to kill it 20 times over.. The only problem with this mode is that you all have to run and ask Uncle FCC what do we do , what do we do ? If everyone would just shut the hell up and use the mode and not whine like a 12 year old girl, the FCC would not even know that it existed or EVEN CARE !! Ham Radio is AMATEUR RADIO--- NOT PROFESSIONAL...Some of its use is for EXPERIMENTATION (if not we'd all be using spark-gap radios today !!! So THANKS for screwing ROS up for the rest of us that don't need Big Brothers permission to pee in the night.. And next time a new mode comes out... PLEASE just stay the hell away from it and go do something like PSK31or something else that you already have Permission to use from Uncle Government !! Its better to ask forgiveness,, because you'll never get permission and American : Thomas Jefferson Garrett / AA0OI http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/47.gif From: rein...@... rein...@... To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 2:52:47 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? Skip, I have a lot of respect for you and appreciated every time you emailed me. Honest. Went yesterday through all messages on ROSMODEM and got the idea of some anti biases built in here and there. Almost from day in. You have numerous messages about US ROS use and I sense it. Sure I have a bias the other way, difference though, ROS is not my program. Even more interesting as far as Jose goes I might be his biggest enemy in the universe. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: KH6TY kh...@... mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net Sent: Jul 12, 2010 3:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the FCC is not that gullible! The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do. This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of a false FCC approval. I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front of this computer. I hope you understand... 73, Skip KH6TY SK On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote: That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836 Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt digital noise
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
SS is defined in 97.1. ??? --- TITLE 47 - TELECOMMUNICATION CHAPTER I - FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION SUBCHAPTER D - SAFETY AND SPECIAL RADIO SERVICES PART 97 - AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE subpart a - GENERAL PROVISIONS 97.1 - Basis and purpose. The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles: (a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications. (b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art. (c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of the art. (d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts. (e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance international goodwill. _ Read more: http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/97-1-basis-and-purpose-19857102#ixzz0tXP5hN2q http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/97-1-basis-and-purpose-19857102#ixzz0tXP5hN2q Lester B Veenstra MØYCM K1YCM mailto:les...@veenstras.com les...@veenstras.com mailto:m0...@veenstras.com m0...@veenstras.com mailto:k1...@veenstras.com k1...@veenstras.com US Postal Address: PSC 45 Box 781 APO AE 09468 USA UK Postal Address: Dawn Cottage Norwood, Harrogate HG3 1SD, UK Telephones: Office: +44-(0)1423-846-385 Home: +44-(0)1943-880-963 Guam Cell: +1-671-788-5654 UK Cell: +44-(0)7716-298-224 US Cell: +1-240-425-7335 Jamaica: +1-876-352-7504 This e-mail and any documents attached hereto contain confidential or privileged information. The information is intended to be for use only by the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail or any documents attached hereto is prohibited. From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bg...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 11:49 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? SS is defined in 97.1. ..Brent, KE4MZ ___
