Greg is using ROS. I have logged him.
Of course he is living in the North West far away from the government. And Graig, I did not suggest an nice older person to go and ask. That were others who wanted it to die. 73 Rein W6sz --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, <k...@...> wrote: > > Hear, hear > > rgrds > Craig > kq6i > > -----Original Message----- > From: AA0OI [mailto:aa...@...] > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:52 PM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? > > > > HI: > I Just have one question... HOW THE HELL OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE ?!! Grow Up, > and let it die..You have all stabbed it > enought to kill it 20 times over.. > The only problem with this mode is that you all have to run and ask Uncle FCC > "what do we do , what do we do ?" > If everyone would just shut the hell up and use the mode and not whine like a > 12 year old girl, the FCC would not even > know that it existed or EVEN CARE !! > Ham Radio is AMATEUR RADIO--- NOT PROFESSIONAL...Some of its use is for > EXPERIMENTATION (if not we'd all be using > spark-gap radios today !!! > So THANKS for screwing ROS up for the rest of us that don't need Big Brothers > permission to pee in the night.. > And next time a new mode comes out... PLEASE just stay the hell away from it > and go do something like PSK31or something > else that you already have Permission to use from Uncle Government !! > "Its better to ask forgiveness,, because you'll never get permission" and > American : Thomas Jefferson > > > Garrett / AA0OI <http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/47.gif> > > > ________________________________ > > From: "rein...@..." <rein...@...> > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 2:52:47 PM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? > > > > > Skip, > > I have a lot of respect for you and appreciated every time you emailed me. > Honest. > > Went yesterday through all messages on ROSMODEM and got the idea of some anti > biases built in here and there. Almost > from day in. > > You have numerous messages about US ROS use and I sense it. Sure I have a > bias the other way, difference though, ROS is > not my program. > Even more interesting as far as Jose goes I might be his biggest enemy in the > universe. > > 73 Rein W6SZ > > -----Original Message----- > >From: KH6TY <kh...@... <mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net> > > >Sent: Jul 12, 2010 3:04 PM > >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > ><mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> > >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? > > > >No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with > >the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, > >which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would > >accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the > >FCC is not that gullible! > > > >The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a > >petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do. > > > >This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested > >in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of > >a false FCC approval. > > > >I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply > >any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit > >orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front > >of this computer. > > > >I hope you understand... > > > >73, Skip KH6TY SK > > > >On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote: > >> > >> That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask > >> evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be > >> allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available. > >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836 > >> > >> Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by > >> some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern > >> technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt > >> digital noise reduction to hf/vhf data modes will stall > >> > >> I note interest in adding the mode to existing software was expressed > >> at a early point in the proceedings ,those asking could see the > >> advantage first hand . (may of been a Homer S DH moment) it looks > >> however now, if this is perhaps not feasible , there is a DDS > >> interface port , but this only connects the MF mode and is in use in > >> France on 137k ,BW issues? MF takes 98 Hz > >> > >> I think Andy is right , some one needs to address the log jam your > >> side of the pond , this not a issue of a local by law , its a cap on > >> technical development , even stone tablets can be recycled these days... > >> > >> G .. > >> > >> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > >> <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> > >> <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, KH6TY <kh6ty@> wrote: > >> > > >> > Andy, > >> > > >> > I have been told by a FCC engineer, part of the evaluation group at > >> > the FCC, whom I will not name, that ROS 16 baud and 1 baud has been > >> > evaluated in the lab and "is" spread-spectrum and therefore illegal > >> > on HF, not only because the author first said it was spread > >> > spectrum and then changed his story. > >> > > >> > Anyone with DigiPan or any other PSK31 program with a waterfall can > >> > verify that the frequency spreading is random and not a function of > >> > the data, which is the signature of spread-spectrum. > >> > > >> > Just because someone "feels" it is not spread spectrum does not > >> > excuse them from following the regulations and those who do not > >> > risk the > >> chance > >> > of FCC action against them once someone files a complaint. > >> > > >> > There is no reason for the FCC to "reconsider" their decision, > >> > since it is based on analysis as well as the author's declaration. > >> > What can be done is to submit a petition to the FCC to allow > >> > limited bandwidth spread spectrum on HF by showing it is not > >> > harmful to other users of > >> the > >> > bands. The instructions for submitting a petition are available on > >> > the FCC website. > >> > > >> > Radio amateurs are responsible for following the regulations, not > >> > just interpreting them as they see fit. > >> > > >> > ROS is legal above 222 Mhz, so freely use it there if you wish. It > >> > is probably really good for EME. > >> > > >> > 73, Skip KH6TY > >> > > >> > On 7/12/2010 6:55 AM, Andy obrien wrote: > >> > > > >> > > For those USA hams that are using ROS on HF, I assume that by > >> > > using it...they feel it is not spread spectrum and thus should be > >> > > legal. Is there any movement towards petitioning the FCC to > >> > > reconsider the unofficial comments by them and obtaining > >> > > statements that it is legal ? Or has everyone agreed it IS spread > >> > > spectrum and given up on it becoming legal in the USA ? > >> > > Andy K3UK > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
