My DELETE button HAS been getting a workout this week... ;-)
Wes W1LIC
________________________________
From: Toby Burnett <ruff...@hebrides.net>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, February 24, 2010 4:48:34 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
For the love of god, (just an expression)
Will everyone please stop !!!!!!!!!!
Over night I have received over 80 messages regarding this conflict. It is
beyond a joke surely.
I must admit that I haven't even read all the messages, but come on folks.
This is getting out of hand.
ROS seems to be no more than using a single frequency with a multi hop FSK
signal that takes up an enormous band width.
Ok so it is large but so are other modes such as mt63 or olivia 2000htz what
is the problem. ?
Use it where the band plans allow I.e. In the voice spectrum. Stop all this
crap about it has to be in with other digi modes (does anyone have a problem
with sstv in 14.230 as it is no where near the other digi modes.)
It is not a spread spectrum frequency hopping mode, indeed it only transmits in
the pass band that your radio is on, not frequency hopping as the FCC mentions.
Give us all a break, please.
If you don't want to use it, then fine.
If you do, then fine.
I'm sick and tired of opening my e-mail and seeing the same spiel as yesterday
and the day before and the bloody week before that.
Put it like this, if it is so bad and you call it spread spectrum frequency
hopping mode. Then what is ALE and the like? Does it even look to see if the
frequency is in use when it changes band automatically. I think not.
Do the pactor stations give a damn when they blast my signal when working
olivia, rtty, ROS, etc . NO
Give it up people
I remember starting in ham radio due to it's unusual regard for self bettering,
understanding and experimenting.
Not bureaucracy and the like.
My 2p worth. I have had enough. Maybe Jose shouldn't have called it SSFH
software but in the end it isn't.
Done
Had enough.
T x
-------
-------Original Message----- --
From: John B. Stephensen
Date: 24/02/2010 04:05:25
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
In order for amateurs in the U.S. to use any RTTY/data mode other than Baudot,
ASCII or AMTOR over 2FSK they must be able to point to a published technical
specification for the potocol that shows that it is legal. It was condition
that we all agreed to when we were issued a license. When this is done the
problem will be solved.
73,
John
KD6OZH
----- Original Message -----
From: John
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 03:41 UTC
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
OK, I am starting to agree with Dave now .... and with Andy as before ... this
is starting to now become circular .....
It has now been solidly established that ROS is FSK, NOT SS, by the authors own
words.
The author NEVER approached the FCC for an "OPINION" about his "unfinished"
work at all. Indeed he made it clear the whole thing was still "BETA" ....
In the US, when has an "OPINION" of someone lower than the enforcing authority
made anything legal or illegal? It was only an opinion of one of the agents
(agent #3820) based on the incomplete data provided to them. had I been that
agent, I would have said the same thing under the circumstances of only having
incomplete, inaccurate documentation presented to me.
Jose, the author, has already indicated he intends to correct the error in his
updated documentation which should remove all questions about legality in the
US. It is not necessary for him to provide anyone with his algorithm so long as
he continues to provide his program so that anyone can monitor the
transmissions. The transmissions all fall within FCC guidelines already, that
has never been argued. The only real argument has been, is it SS or FSK. If it
is FSK, it is NOT illegal. The spread spectrum rule simply does not apply here.
What more will the outcome of this discussion ultimately determine?
Presently, the FCC is so understaffed due to budgetary constraints, my guess is
that they really do not have the resources needed to chase such questionable
things as this in the first place. Can anyone imagine our enforcement group is
going to expend the kind of resources necessary to enforce something that is
likely not really an issue in the first place? They are not there just sitting
and waiting to jump on anyone "potentially" violating such a questionable
matter in the first place.
As for the requirements of how this software generates or does not generate
it's spectrum should no longer even be a question since the only reason it was
ever argued in the first place was based on the authors misunderstanding of OUR
(the US) definition of SS versus FSK. Once he (the program author) understood
the difference in that definition, he immediately noted his program was NOT SS
at all, but was in fact FSK. Argument should be over? TRUE? NOT TRUE?
Dave, where would we go from here ..... if we were in your country?
John
KE5HAM
--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, KH6TY <kh...@...> wrote:
>
> It is a NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT requirement (out of three). The point
> is that if that is not the way the spreading is done in ROS, ROS is NOT
> spread spectrum. PROVE, not just claim, that it is not, and the battle
> is won.
>
> 73 - Skip KH6TY
