The only problem is that Mr Henderson is mistaken in one regard. Per Part 97, spread spectrum is not authorized on 6m or 2m. The rules specifically state (section 97.305(b)) "no SS modulation emission may be transmitted on any frequency where SS is not specifically authorized.". A review of the table associated with this section indicates SS is only authorized on 1.25m and above.
Additionally, section 97.311 regulates SS emission specifically, including such things as maximum power (100w) and the use of automatic transmitter control if more than 1w is used to ensure that only the minimum amount of power is actually used. So, keep that in mind if you want to use it on UHF. For anyone who actually wants to READ the rules instead of relying on the opinions of others, the 2009 version can be found here (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009-title47-vol5/pdf/CFR-2009-title47-vol5-part97.pdf). The rules listed on the ARRL site are from 2007 and are thus out-of-date. The sections cited above are on page 26 and 27 of the PDF file (labeled page 611 and 612 of the regs). I would recommend that all amateurs keep a copy of this file on their computer. It is only 36 pages long and definitely worth reviewing from time to time. Dave K3DCW On Aug 24, 2010, at 9:16 AM, n4zq wrote: > Here is a response I got from Dan Henderson, N1ND, ARRL Regulatory > Information Manager about the legality of ROS here in the states. My question > was very simple. Is ROS a legal mode under FCC rules and if not, what would > it take to make it so. Here is what Dan had to say. > > From: dhender...@arrl.org > To: n...@hotmail.com > > Keith > > ROS is a spread spectrum technique. FCC rules allow Spread Spectrum above 50 > MHz. It is not currently legal on the HF bands in the US. There has been > quite a controversy about ROS since it was introduced. The original > documentation from the developer clearly stated it was SS which was confirmed > by the FCC. When the developer was notified SS was not legal in the US below > 30 MHz, he changed his documentation then posted a forged email claiming it > was from the FCC and that they had changed their opinion. Long story short, > it uses a frequency hopping SS technique, regardless of what the author later > claimed when the controversy erupted. This was verified by FCC engineers in > their labs. Yes, it is a narrow bandwidth SS technique but it is still SS. > > The FCC would have to change Part 97 in order for it to be allowed on the HF > bands in the US. They would either have to amend the rules to allow SS on all > amateur bands (something that would probably be strongly opposed because many > SS techniques are far wider than this mode and would create major problems on > the relatively small HF band allocations) or they would have to specifically > approve it for use. That is something that they have not been inclined to do > because they do not wish to be constantly adding individual modes as they are > developed. They provide a broad framework in the rules for what is allowed or > prohibited and the mode either meets those criteria or it doesn't. > > 73 > > Dan Henderson, N1ND > ARRL Regulatory Information Manager > > So it is what it is and I wouldn't look forward to being able to use it on HF > any time soon here in the good old USA. But it might be a great weak signal > mode on 6 meters in this very late E season. Anyone up to beaconing on 50.295 > or 144.160 MHz, the frequencies suggested within the program? I'll be on 6 > myself... > > Keith N4ZQ > > Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net
