Please provide a citation from part 97 that prohibits ROS even if it were deemed to truly be spread spectrum.
KH6TY wrote: > In most legal documents, specific references override general ones. > > In this discussion, only the FCC attorneys can decide what is allowed > and what is not. Until then, the specific regulations regarding SS are > assumed to be the law in this country, no matter how badly it is > desired to use the new mode, and what rationalizations are made for > being able to use it. > > This road has been traveled before! > > 73 - Skip KH6TY > > > > > w2xj wrote: >> >> >> I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that >> >> would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments >> where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to >> support such operation: >> >> (b) Where authorized by §§ 97.305(c) >> and 97.307(f) of this part, a station may >> transmit a RTTY or data emission >> using an unspecified digital code, except >> to a station in a country with >> which the United States does not have >> an agreement permitting the code to be >> used. RTTY and data emissions using >> unspecified digital codes must not be >> transmitted for the purpose of obscuring >> the meaning of any communication. >> When deemed necessary by a District >> Director to assure compliance >> with the FCC Rules, a station must: >> (1) Cease the transmission using the >> unspecified digital code; >> (2) Restrict transmissions of any digital >> code to the extent instructed; >> (3) Maintain a record, convertible to >> the original information, of all digital >> communications transmitted >> >> I also do not see anything in the part 97 subsection on spread spectrum >> ( if in fact ROS was really determined to be an SS mode) that would make >> ROS non compliant. >> >> Part 97 technical standards mostly harmonize US rules with ITU >> international treaties They are written to be quite broad in order to >> permit experimentation. So long as the coding technique is public and >> can be received by anyone, the real restriction is based on allowable >> bandwidth and power allocated for a given frequency. >> >> John B. Stephensen wrote: >> > The attachments are a good illustration why the rules should be >> changed. Olivia and ROS use a similar amount of spectrum so the FCC >> shouldn't be calling one legal and the other illegal based on how >> they were generated. >> > >> > 73, >> > >> > John >> > KD6OZH >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: Tony >> > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >> <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> >> > Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 08:20 UTC >> > Subject: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS [2 Attachments] >> > >> > >> > >> > [Attachment(s) from Tony included below] >> > >> > >> > >> > All, >> > >> > It would appear that ROS-16 is not much different than say Olivia >> 128 / 2K. The number of tones may differ, but they both use MFSK >> modulation with sequential tones running at 16 baud. The question is >> how can ROS be considered a SS frequency hoping mode while Olivia and >> it's derivatives are not? >> > >> > A closer look shows that they are quite similar (see attached). >> > >> > Tony -K2MO >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >