I am for whatever will succeed, but do not underestimate how difficult
it is to convincingly reverse oneself after first originally being so
convincing.
For myself, even from the beginning, I could not understand how the
spreading was accomplished by a code that everyone else automatically
had, but that was the claim, so I accepted it. Perhaps there is no
spreading code independent of the data, but if so, it must now be proven
thus, and not just claimed in what might be seen as an attempt to have
something approved that has already been disapproved.
Just because I might possess the necessary technical skills does not
mean I can individually overrule the FCC with my actions. Even opposing
technical experts are called by both parties in a legal argument, and
the "judge" to decide who is correct in this case is the FCC, which has
already issued an opinion, even if it may be wrong if given new
information, but just "saying it is so does not make it so". I believe
some concrete proof is required now, and maybe your spectrum analyzer
display can be part of such proof.
Other's opinions may vary...
73 - Skip KH6TY
W2XJ wrote:
Skip
You are over thinking this. The FCC said as they always do that you as
a licensee must possess the technical skill to evaluate whether or not
a particular mode meets the rules. On Jose's part a better technical
description and some clarification would be very helpful to this end.
I think just looking at the output on a spectrum analyzer would also
be quite revealing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *KH6TY <kh...@comcast.net <kh...@comcast.net>>
*Reply-To: *<digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com>>
*Date: *Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:03:06 -0500
*To: *<digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com>>
*Subject: *Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Jose,
I am only trying to suggest whatever ideas I can to get ROS declared
to be legal. You have made such a strong case for FHSS already, that
only "saying" you were mistaken probably will not convince the FCC.
They will assume you are only changing the description so ROS appears
to be legal and will demand proof that it is not FHSS to change their
minds. This is only my personal, unbiased, opinion, as I would like
very much for you to succeed.
Essentially, you must PROVE that, spreading is NOT accomplished by
means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is
independent of the data. How do you do that without disclosing the
code? At this point, I doubt that the FCC will believe mere words,
because there is so much pressure to allow ROS in HF in this country.
Keep in mind the mess that Toyota finds itself by previously denying
there is any substantial problem with unattended acceleration or
braking of their cars. That may still prove to be true (i.e. not
"substantial"), but the government here is now demanding that Toyota
SHOW proof that there is no problem, and not merely saying there is
not. This is currently a very hot topic with the government and
Congress and on the minds of everyone. So I assume likewise that PROOF
will have to be SHOWN that there is no spreading signal used in ROS.
Mere words will probably not be enough, and there is probably only ONE
chance to succeed, so you need to be successful the first time. If you
decide to only change the description and nothing further, I sincerely
hope I am wrong, and I could well be. But, that is your decision, not
mine.
If you need to protect your invention, then just fully document and
witness it, or do whatever is necessary in your country and others,
and be free to do whatever is required to win this battle.
Good luck!
73 - Skip KH6TY
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
Hi, KH6.
I only i am going to describe in a technicals article how run the
mode. If FCC want the code they will have to buy it me, that is
obvious.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De:* KH6TY <kh...@comcast.net <kh...@comcast.net>>
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com>
*Enviado:* mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:31
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Jose,
"
You will have to disclose the algorithm that determines the
spreading on ROS (independent of the data), or bandwidth
expansion, if that is actually used. You will have to convince
technical people that will show your new description to our FCC
that your original description was wrong and prove it by revealing
your code. I think this is the only way to get the FCC opinion
reversed. You now have a difficult task before you, but I wish you
success, as ROS is a really fun mode.
73 - Skip KH6TY
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
Is legal because ROS is a FSK modulation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De:* ocypret <n5...@arrl.net> <mailto:n5...@arrl.net
<mailto:n5...@arrl.net>>
*Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
*Enviado:* mar,23 febrero, 2010 21:26
*Asunto:* [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not?
