The FCC said
" 'ROS' is viewed as 'spread spectrum,' and the creator of the system describes
it as that. We assume that he knows what he created."
This is unequivocal.
However, the FCC also says
"The Commission does not determine if a particular mode 'truly' represents
spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules. The licensee of the station
transmitting the emission is responsible for determining that the operation of
the station complies with the rules."
Thus if someone were to convince the FCC that ROS is in fact not spread
spectrum, then ROS could be used on HF by US operators. 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.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-----Original Message-----
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of Rik 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 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 not determine if a particular mode
'truly' represents spread spectrum, and
3) The licensee of the station transmitting the emission is
responsible for determining that the operation of the
station complies with the rules.
Once Jose publishes a full specification for ROS (one that
is complete enough to create an interoperable alternative
implementation), US hams will be able to make the technical
determination that the FCC requires us to make.
Until then, there is no way to be sure whether or not ROS
is legal to use in the US. We simply do not have enough
info to make the determination.
I expect that cautious US hams will avoid ROS until there
is certainty that ROS is in fact legal.
--
All rights reversed.
