On 07/19/10 11:48 am, g4ilo wrote: >> Your definition might be called what "good SS" is and the way ROS does SS >> might be called what "bad SS" is. But how wide is PSK31? Is ROS wider? So >> ROS is wider than needed to convey intelligence. > > So is RTTY. But it isn't SS. > >> Your point is well taken, but not relevant to people under the FCC's >> jurisdiction. > > I don't see why not, actually. I understand from these posts that it is the > individual American ham's responsibility to determine whether anything they > do complies with the regulations. The fact that someone asked for guidance > and received an answer that many believe to be wrong doesn't change that. > > IF someone got a knock on the door for using the ROS mode then I would have > thought citing that formula as justification for believing the mode they were > using was not SS would be a valid response. The onus would then be on the > FCC/whoever to produce a valid counter argument. The fact that the mode was > once described as SS by a non native English speaker could easily and > plausibly be explained as a mistranslation.
But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that "the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF." ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself. 73 Alan NV8A
