I normally just lurk on this list, but I wanted to jump in and make an important clarification. >Mr. Dan Henderson is a paid lawyer ( unusual for ARRL officials ) >Enough said here. He is a liaison person for among other organizations, the >FCC. >He communicates, does not ask questions
Dan Henderson, N1ND, is not employed at ARRL Headquarters as an attorney. He is our Regulatory Branch Manager, not an "official." (Officials are ARRL corporate officers and Division Directors.) Dan only represents the ARRL in his work, not other organizations. You are probably confusing Dan with Chris Imlay, the ARRL General Counsel. Chris *is* an attorney and represents the ARRL in that capacity before the FCC and in other matters. 73 . . . Steve Ford, WB8IMY ARRL ________________________________ From: Rein A [mailto:rein...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Mon 7/12/2010 6:00 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum Hi Skip, I like to see this ruling revisited by technical personal within the FCC. The FCC, not ARRL. That's all. Mr. Dan Henderson is a paid lawyer ( unusual for ARRL officials ) Enough said here. He is a liaison person for among other organizations, the FCC. He communicates, does not ask questions I do not think and did not think the day it was made, it was done by the right person(s). What is "Is is up to the people etc we don't rule on the mode or its content/operation?" You and others here promoted the decision as in concrete. I think you and others like it to be so ( just an opinion ) All the stupidity of Jose and now this cluster thing make revisiting harder and harder, if not impossible indeed. If the few of us here who are interested to use ROS had been united and not scared by the please lets move on crowd we could have been able to at least reconsider the situation. Therefore we all should force Jose to fix this and the users outside the US should stop using it. Of course they are mot reading this or even part from this group. Clear and simple 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> , KH6TY <kh...@...> wrote: > > It was not my idea. The author wanted the FCC to say it was not spread > spectrum. Unfortunately for all of us in the US, it is spread spectrum, > and the FCC rules do not allow that below 222 MHz. > > I am not potentially damaging the hobby as a whole, just posting what I > know. > > Go ahead and use ROS if you think you will be legal! You will do more > damage to the hobby than anyone who refuses to use it, by flaunting the > regulations. > > 73, Skip KH6TY. > > On 7/12/2010 1:52 PM, W2XJ wrote: > > > > Why do you persist in getting the FCC involved? You are potentially > > damaging the hobby as a whole. If one is qualified to hold a license > > the FCC presumes ones ability to determine what operations are legal. > > > > > > On 7/12/10 1:28 PM, "KH6TY" <kh...@... <kh...@...>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lester, > > The "inventor" has shown over and over that he is not to be > > trusted, and so his block diagram would not be believed either. I > > suggested months ago to him to just send his code in confidence to > > the FCC, which they would keep private, and be done with it. He > > replied that, arrogantly, "The FCC would have to purchase the code > > from him". To me, that suggests that he is unwilling to disclose > > the code because it would prove once and for all that it was > > spread spectrum, and instead, he tried to bluff his way to > > approval, even by changing his original description of the code as > > spread spectrum, which obviously did not work. > > > > ROS's best advantage, IMHO, is for EME, and it is legal there for > > US hams for 432 and 1296 EME. I only wish it were legal on 2M also > > and I could use it for EME on that band. > > > > Yes, it should be open-source, and that would end the discussion, > > but he has (for perhaps devious or commercial) personal reasons > > for refusing to do so. > > > > That is just not going to happen, so let's end the discussion on > > that note and get on the air instead! > > > > 73, Skip KH6TY > > > > On 7/12/2010 1:14 PM, Lester Veenstra wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Skip: > > > > Spectral analysis cannot differentiate between a high > > rate FEC operating after, as it invariably must, a randomizer, > > and a true spread spectrum system. And a spread spectrum > > system does not need to employ frequency hopping. And a signal > > that "frequency hops" is not necessarily a spread spectrum > > signal. I refer you to the old favorite of the UK Diplomatic > > service, the Piccolo. > > > > > > > > As I advocated in an earlier post, the way to end this endless > > discussion would be for the "inventor" to disclose the block > > diagram of the various steps in his encoding/modulation > > system. In fact I was rash enough to suggest that IMHO, all of > > these systems being played with by hams, should be open > > sourced, so that, the end user can have some confidence in > > what he is using, and the state of the art can be mutually > > advanced. We started with this philosophy with the TTL > > MAINLINER-II, and continue it today with many of the DSPR > > systems out there, including the primary commercial company. > > Their disclosure does not seem to have slowed them down at all. > > > > Thanks 73 > > > > Les > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
