Just keep the FCC out of this. They do will not deal with such issues. If pushed, the out come will not be pretty. This was discussed at Dayton a few years out. Basically we either self police or risk extinction.
On 7/12/10 5:00 PM, "Rein A" <rein...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Skip, > > This is the second time you post this message about the FCC engineer > > Why don't you tell us how we can get in touch with this engineer. > > I would really like to hear that from that person and I would ask him > whether the info was for public consumption or "on background" > as used in the Media, "not authorized" to talk about it because of > this or that. > > Where does this person work, Washington DC, PA, Boston? > > Why is this engineer's statement not in the public domain? > > FCC is a Federal Agency , not some hidden laboratory in a basement somewhere, > privately owned, concerned about IP or patents. > > Always have to get back to this point Why is this not published > by FCC on there information outlets? > > They publish all the time as the Federal Communication Commission > and not to a private person or a club of hobbyists with all respect > for the ARRL. > > 73 Rein W6SZ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> , > KH6TY <kh...@...> 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 >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >
