Re: [digitalradio] ROS update
Amateur radio technology must not advance and we must continue to use only old modes. Make sure we keep ham radio stagnant and only hope commercial businesses move forward and kill our hobby Bob, AA8X . - Original Message - From: Dave Ackrill To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 6:00 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS update KH6TY wrote: Unfortunately, it appears that ROS is actually FHSS, as originally described on the ROS website, and therefore is not legal for US hams below 222MHz. :-( I think that I now no longer care about whether ROS is, or is not, legal in the USA. I see that I am now subject to moderation on here, so my freedom of speech on the subject seems to be curtailed. Strange that, don't you think for those of you that are from the land of free speech, that the moderators, who seem to live in the USA, now want to vet my posts to this group? My previous posts were to give details of the band plans in the UK by reference to the RSGB website. I'm not sure why, but they never were allowed to be posted. I wonder if this will be allowed? Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Asking a lawyer is the last person you would ask for technical advice. Try asking an engineer not a lawyer. Bob, AA8X - Original Message - From: Rik van Riel To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` On 02/23/2010 03:26 PM, ocypret wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? There's a few things we all agree on: 1) The legality of a mode depends on the technical details of that mode, not on what the author calls the mode. 2) The FCC's lawyers are the definite authority. K3UK has sent a letter to the FCC to ask for clarification. Once the FCC responds, we'll know for sure :) -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Illegal immigration is also not allowed, but our government supports it. So have fun with ROS. Bob, AA8X - Original Message - From: Dave To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA? Jose (and all), My two-cents worth: Olivia is MFSK (or AMFSK), ROS is Spread Spectrum. MFSK is legal on HF, SS is not. It isn't about bandwidth or any of the other arguments. Since ROS is Spread Spectrum then it is not allowed on HF in areas regulated by the FCC under the current rules. Skip is correct here and Andy is right to be concerned. Dave K3DCW Dave Real radio bounces off the sky On 19 Feb, at 4:47 PM, KH6TY wrote: Jose, We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision, but our FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are valid. Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?
You must be referring to contesters that have no regard for any digital frequency. Lets begin regulating contesters. Bob, AA8X - Original Message - From: W2XJ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:28 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology? With the current band conditions, almost all I hear is CW. There are good digital modes such as PSK31 but we do not need bandwidth hogging autonomous robots jumping on any QSO that happens to get in it's way. Michael Hatzakis Jr MD wrote: I am fairly naïve to this situation, but have been a ham for the last 35 years. I wonder, which narrow band modes do you refer to for use in a dire emergency? CW? How many CW ops do you think there will be left in 50 years, or even 10 years? And, if you are 500 miles out at sea, and need to make a contact or log your position, no cell phone, and with crappy band conditions, how effective do you really think voice or RTTY will be? I can tell you, useless. Of course, one can make the point that sailors can use commercial sailmail systems, but what a great way to encourage sailors to become hams. How many hams do we think will be left in 50 years? Less or more than today? A friend of mine re-entered the hobby when he voyaged across the pacific and used Winlink and HF voice along with other modes just to stay in touch. He had no other communication modes available. Maybe there is a better way than to abolish higher bandwidth digital in the HF spectrum. How about further band segment segregation? My $0.02 Michael _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:44 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology? Fine, I agree lets kill them all. At the end of the day only narrow band modes will work in a dire emergency. expeditionradio wrote: --- In digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band modes, there must be an investigation. You will need to start with the widest modes... how about 80 meters AM interfering with SSB. What about vice-versa? Should there be an investigation when a narrower mode interferes with a wider mode? The petition is not about interference. It is about killing ALL digital data modes wider than 1.5kHz. Manual or auto. End of story. Bonnie KQ6XA -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.9/1197 - Release Date: 12/25/2007 8:04 PM
Re: [digitalradio] FCC Announcement
The antenna restrictions have been in place for some time, as required by the government and FCC. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.23/740 - Release Date: 3/30/2007 1:15 PM
Re: [digitalradio] FCC Drops Morse Code
Ten Four, Good Buddy! 73, Bob AA8X - Original Message - From: Radioguy To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:07 PM Subject: [digitalradio] FCC Drops Morse Code FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: December 15, 2006 Chelsea Fallon: (202) 418-7991 FCC MODIFIES AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE RULES, ELIMINATING MORSE CODE EXAM REQUIREMENTS AND ADDRESSING ARRL PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Washington, D.C. - Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration (Order) that modifies the rules for the Amateur Radio Service by revising the examination requirements for obtaining a General Class or Amateur Extra Class amateur radio operator license and revising the operating privileges for Technician Class licensees. In addition, the Order resolves a petition filed by the American Radio Relay League, Inc. (ARRL) for partial reconsideration of an FCC Order on amateur service rules released on October 10, 2006. The current amateur service operator license structure contains three classes of amateur radio operator licenses: Technician Class, General Class, and Amateur Extra Class. General Class and Amateur Extra Class licensees are permitted to operate in Amateur bands below 30 MHz, while the introductory Technician Class licensees are only permitted to operate in bands above 30 MHz. Prior to today's action, the FCC, in accordance with international radio regulations, required applicants for General Class and Amateur Extra Class operator licenses to pass a five words-per-minute Morse code examination. Today's Order eliminates that requirement for General and Amateur Extra licensees. This change reflects revisions to international radio regulations made at the International Telecommunication Union's 2003 World Radio Conference (WRC-03), which authorized each country to determine whether to require that individuals demonstrate Morse code proficiency in order to qualify for an amateur radio license with transmitting privileges on frequencies below 30 MHz. This change eliminates an unnecessary regulatory burden that may discourage current amateur radio operators from advancing their skills and participating more fully in the benefits of amateur radio. Today's Order also revises the operating privileges for Technician Class licensees by eliminating a disparity in the operating privileges for the Technician Class and Technician Plus Class licensees. Technician Class licensees are authorized operating privileges on all amateur frequencies above 30 MHz. The Technician Plus Class license, which is an operator license class that existed prior the FCC's simplification of the amateur license structure in 1999 and was grandfathered after that time, authorized operating privileges on all amateur frequencies above 30 MHz, as well as frequency segments in four HF bands (below 30 MHz) after the successful completion of a Morse code examination. With today's elimination of the Morse code exam requirements, the FCC concluded that the disparity between the operating privileges of Technician Class licensees and Technician Plus Class licensees should not be retained. Therefore, the FCC, in today's action, afforded Technician and Technician Plus licensees identical operating privileges. Finally, today's Order resolved a petition filed by the ARRL for partial reconsideration of an FCC Order released on October 10, 2006 (FCC 06-149). In this Order, the FCC authorized amateur stations to transmit voice communications on additional frequencies in certain amateur service bands, including the 75 meter (m) band, which is authorized only for certain wideband voice and image communications. The ARRL argued that the 75 m band should not have been expanded below 3635 kHz, in order to protect automatically controlled digital stations operating in the 3620-3635 kHz portion of the 80 m band. The FCC concluded that these stations can be protected by providing alternate spectrum in the 3585-3600 kHz frequency segment. Action by the Commission on December 15, 2006, by Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration. Chairman Martin and Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate, and McDowell. For additional information, contact William Cross at (202) 418-0691 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] WT Docket Nos. 04-140 and 05-235. - FCC - -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.20/588 - Release Date: 12/15/2006 10:02 AM
