You can't unscramble eggs. On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:09 PM, expeditionradio <expeditionra...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping > Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio > operators to obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use > of ROS on HF without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise, > hams will need an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA. > > Sadly, this may lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams. > > If ROS Modem had simply provided the technical specifications of the > emission, and not called it "Spread Spectrum", there would have been a > chance for it to be easily adopted by Ham Radio operators in USA. > > But, the ROS modem designer is rightfully proud of the design, and he lives > in a country that is not bound by FCC rules, and probably had little or no > knowledge of how his advertising might prevent thousands of hams from using > it in USA. > > But, as they say, "You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung". > > ROS signal can be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other types > of n-ary-FSK presently in widespread use by USA hams. The specific > algorithms for signal process and format could simply have been documented > without calling it Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Since it is a > narrowband signal (using the FCC and ITU definitions of narrowband emission > = less than 3kHz) within the width of an SSB passband, it does not fit the > traditional FHSS description as a conventional wideband technique. > > It probably would not have been viewed as FHSS under the spirit and > intention of the FCC rules. It doesn't hop the VFO frequency. It simply FSKs > according to a programmable algorithm, and it meets the infamous 1kHz shift > 300 baud rule. > http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#307f3 > > This is a typical example of how outdated the present FCC rules are, > keeping USA hams in "TECHNOLOGY JAIL" while the rest of the world's hams > move forward with digital technology. It should come as no surprise that > most of the new ham radio digital modes are not being developed in USA! > > But, for a moment, let's put aside the issue of current FCC "prohibition" > against Spread Spectrum and/or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum, and how it > relates to ROS mode. Let's look at "bandwidth". > > There is the other issue of "bandwidth" that some misguided USA hams have > brought up here and in other forums related to ROS. Some superstitious hams > seem to erroneously think that there is an over-reaching "bandwidth limit" > in the FCC rules for data/text modes on HF that might indicate what part of > the ham band to operate it or not operate it. > > FACT: > "There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on HF data/text emission in > USA ham bands, except for the sub-band and band edges." > > FACT: > "FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on "content" of the > emission, not bandwidth." > > New SDR radios have the potential to transmit and receive wider bandwidths > than the traditional 3kHz SSB passband. We will see a lot more development > in this area of technology in the future, and a lot more gray areas of 20th > century FCC rules that inhibit innovation and progress for ham radio HF > digital technology in the 21st century. > > Several years ago, there was a proposal to FCC to provide regulation by > bandwidth rather than content. However, it failed to be adopted, and ARRL's > petition to limit bandwidth was withdrawn > http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/04/27/101/?nc=1 > > Thus, USA hams will continue to be in Technology Jail without access to > many new modes in the foreseeable future :( > > Best Wishes, > Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page > http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
