Dave AA6YQ wrote:
However the source of this proof would have to come from someone other than
the ROS developer, who now has no credibility with the FCC whatsoever.
Is that what the FCC said, or is that just your opinion, Dave?
Dave (G0DJA)
AA6YQ comments below.
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Dave Ackrill
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 3:14 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC on ROS post on ARRL website!
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
However
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11377/?nc=1
So we can forget about here in the US...too bad it looked really nice...73, Alan
On 03/04/2010 02:02 PM, Alan wrote:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11377/?nc=1
So we can forget about here in the US...too bad it looked really nice...73,
Alan
I don't read it like that.
The FCC just says that:
1) spread spectrum is not allowed on HF, and
2) The Commission does
If anyone doubts that ROS is actually spread spectrum, download, unzip
and compare screen captures of both ROS and FMSK64, idling, and when
data (a string of periods) is sent. It is easy to see that the
frequencies of the ROS carriers are not determined by the data, but that
the data is
Typo - should have read MFSK64 not FMSK64.
73 - Skip KH6TY
KH6TY wrote:
If anyone doubts that ROS is actually spread spectrum, download, unzip
and compare screen captures of both ROS and FMSK64, both at idling,
and when data (in this case, only a string of periods) is sent. It is
easy to
van Riel
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 5:54 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC on ROS post on ARRL website!
On 03/04/2010 02:02 PM, Alan wrote:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11377/?nc=1
So we can forget about here in the US...too bad it looked
