Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS - make it legal in USA
Not all radio sevices reference 2.201 so changing part 97 wouldn't be a major problem for the FCC. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: vinceinwaukesha To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 21:19 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS - make it legal in USA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Stephensen" wrote: > What ROS users should do is email their ARRL representative and have them petition the FCC to change the rules. One solution is to eliminate the emission designators and change the RTTY/data segment of each HF band to 0-500 Hz wide emissions and the phone/image of each HF band to 0-8 kHz wide emissions with 0-20 kHz above 29 MHz. Well, most hams inaccurately believe, as a simplification, that the rule is emission designators ending in A/B go at the bottom of the band, ending in E goes at the top of the band, and ending in D wiggle in between. However, the whole point of the ROS debate is that FCC 97.3(c) does exist, like it or not, and FCC 97.3(c) was way over complicated and is simply obsolete. The FCC is not going to wipe FCC 2.201 because hams don't like emissions designators. A simpler solution than yours, would be to wipe 97.3(c) and replace it with something along the lines of "ordering our transmissions based on alphabetical order of the letter at the end of our emissions designators.", and then toss something in about 97.101(a) implying that maximizing the amount of cooperation with as many as possible of the thousands of band plans would be defined as "good engineering practice". Which would pretty much end up as the status quo, with the added feature of eliminating all future RF engineer lawyer-ing. 73 de Vince N9NFB
[digitalradio] Re: ROS - make it legal in USA
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Stephensen" wrote: > What ROS users should do is email their ARRL representative and have them > petition the FCC to change the rules. One solution is to eliminate the > emission designators and change the RTTY/data segment of each HF band to > 0-500 Hz wide emissions and the phone/image of each HF band to 0-8 kHz wide > emissions with 0-20 kHz above 29 MHz. Well, most hams inaccurately believe, as a simplification, that the rule is emission designators ending in A/B go at the bottom of the band, ending in E goes at the top of the band, and ending in D wiggle in between. However, the whole point of the ROS debate is that FCC 97.3(c) does exist, like it or not, and FCC 97.3(c) was way over complicated and is simply obsolete. The FCC is not going to wipe FCC 2.201 because hams don't like emissions designators. A simpler solution than yours, would be to wipe 97.3(c) and replace it with something along the lines of "ordering our transmissions based on alphabetical order of the letter at the end of our emissions designators.", and then toss something in about 97.101(a) implying that maximizing the amount of cooperation with as many as possible of the thousands of band plans would be defined as "good engineering practice". Which would pretty much end up as the status quo, with the added feature of eliminating all future RF engineer lawyer-ing. 73 de Vince N9NFB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS - make it legal in USA
The documentation states "the data symbols modulates a carrier whose frequency is psuedorandomly determined" and "ROS modulation scheme can be thought of as a two-step process - data modulation and frequency hopping moduation". Unfortunately, the FCC rules care about the modulation scheme rather than the bandwidth. The FCC regulations are all about labelling things. They should be modified to regulate by bandwidth but that will never happen if people ignore the law instead of petitioning to change it. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: n9dsj To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 04:25 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS - make it legal in USA Is it? Look at the published technical specs and explain how it is "Spread Spectrum" or "frequency hopping" other than by label. 73, Bill, N9DSJ
[digitalradio] Re: ROS - make it legal in USA
Is it? Look at the published technical specs and explain how it is "Spread
Spectrum" or "frequency hopping" other than by label.
73,
Bill, N9DSJ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Stephensen" wrote:
>
> ROS is MFSK16 with frequency hopping so it is SS per the FCC definition as
> the bandwidth is expanded.
{nipped}
>
