RE: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
Dave, You make good points, and you've already hugely contributed and continue to contribute to Ham Radio, so I don't mean to question you. But if the FCC agent does not consider us Hams a bunch of squabbling children, I guess we are lucky. We sure look that way to me. I am deeply disappointed about this ROS affair. The major parties in the conflict did not conduct themselves well. As a citizen of the US, it is embarassing the FCC rules don't take bandwidth into account when defining what modes are legal on what bands, and they don't, as you point out, technically define spread spectrum. This probably does not look good to most of the rest of the ham radio world. But given the FCC's statement about each amateur radio operator being responsbile for determining what a mode is and where, therefore, it can be legally operated, I suspect the ham community in the US would have been better off letting each amateur make that determination. I don't think it was wise to immediately contact FCC and ask them, given the givens. This is usually true in every general situation like this, until all the facts can be gathered. At the same time, we have to admit that the author or ROS, similar to FCC's lack of clarity in their rules, has not technically defined ROS very well so far. I hope that changes. Overall, these past weeks have not been amateur radio's finest hours. Jim - K6JM Original Message Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com Date: Thu, March 04, 2010 10:25 am To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com I disagree. We are required to determine whether a mode is legal before using it. The author initially described ROS as being spread spectrum. Part 97 precludes the use of spread spectrum on HF, but gives no clear definition of spread spectrum. The FCC bears responsibility for this lack of clarity, and so cannot blame amateurs who seek their help in determining whether ROS is legal on HF. They do work for us, after all. In my conversation with Dawn (FCC agent 3820), there was not a whiff of why are you guys annoying us with this nonsense?. She wasn't happy about having her words publicly twisted into ROS is legal on HF, though. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of J. Moen Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 1:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) And think real hard next time before calling the FCC. Ham radio was the net loser in this episode. We are already viewed as squabbling children at the FCC, and this type of episode just reinforces that view of amateur radio. AMEN. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Alan Barrow To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 8:06 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) pd4u_dares wrote: ... considering legal action ... has an apparent plan ... may have understandably frustrated Jose I really have mixed feelings about how this all played out as well. While I don't agree with ban lists, I can see where the software author could get very frustrated at what could be perceived as an attempt to get a new mode banned. My observation is that when an arms length ham goes to the ARRL/FCC with an is this legal it nearly always results in a at first glance we do not think so. Historically, this is nearly always done by people opposed to the new mode, and looking to see it banned. Having seen this happen more than once, and having detailed information on two of those cases, it's the wrong way to handle such a query, even if done in good faith. And like most times this occurs, with more detail, and maybe a bit more objective presentation (like making it clear it's ssb bandwidth with an audio sample), the FCC Input is reversed. (it was never a decision, just an opinion based on the facts at hand) In this particular case it's made much worse by the sparse, poor wording in the fcc regs. The issue was not that ROS technically used SS type techniques. Or even could clearly be called SS using the ITU definition. Instead, the core issue was: did ROS behave like traditional SS in a way that would cause interference and thus was banned under 220 mhz. And the answer to that is clearly no. It behaves like many other AFSK'ish modes that use an SSB bandwidth. Other legal modes use randomization in a way that by very strict interpretation could be called SS. Had it hopped across 100khz, using vco rf stages, it'd clearly be illegal. Personally, I think it's unfair to compare to the other authors, as they have
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
AA6YQ comments below From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of J. Moen Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 10:11 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) Dave, You make good points, and you've already hugely contributed and continue to contribute to Ham Radio, so I don't mean to question you. The fact that I write free software for the amateur community doesn’t mean my posts are beyond question. I make mistakes just like everyone else does, and don’t mind being called on them. But if the FCC agent does not consider us Hams a bunch of squabbling children, I guess we are lucky. We sure look that way to me. I am deeply disappointed about this ROS affair. The major parties in the conflict did not conduct themselves well. As a citizen of the US, it is embarassing the FCC rules don't take bandwidth into account when defining what modes are legal on what bands, and they don't, as you point out, technically define spread spectrum. This probably does not look good to most of the rest of the ham radio world. But given the FCC's statement about each amateur radio operator being responsbile for determining what a mode is and where, therefore, it can be legally operated, I suspect the ham community in the US would have been better off letting each amateur make that determination. I don't think it was wise to immediately contact FCC and ask them, given the givens. This is usually true in every general situation like this, until all the facts can be gathered. At the same time, we have to admit that the author or ROS, similar to FCC's lack of clarity in their rules, has not technically defined ROS very well so far. I hope that changes. Overall, these past weeks have not been amateur radio's finest hours. It has been a bit of a perfect storm: attractive new mode, described as spread spectrum by its developer, US hams unable to use spread spectrum on HF, but no clear definition of what constitutes spread spectrum. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
And think real hard next time before calling the FCC. Ham radio was the net loser in this episode. We are already viewed as squabbling children at the FCC, and this type of episode just reinforces that view of amateur radio. AMEN. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Alan Barrow To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 8:06 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) pd4u_dares wrote: ... considering legal action ... has an apparent plan ... may have understandably frustrated Jose I really have mixed feelings about how this all played out as well. While I don't agree with ban lists, I can see where the software author could get very frustrated at what could be perceived as an attempt to get a new mode banned. My observation is that when an arms length ham goes to the ARRL/FCC with an is this legal it nearly always results in a at first glance we do not think so. Historically, this is nearly always done by people opposed to the new mode, and looking to see it banned. Having seen this happen more than once, and having detailed information on two of those cases, it's the wrong way to handle such a query, even if done in good faith. And like most times this occurs, with more detail, and maybe a bit more objective presentation (like making it clear it's ssb bandwidth with an audio sample), the FCC Input is reversed. (it was never a decision, just an opinion based on the facts at hand) In this particular case it's made much worse by the sparse, poor wording in the fcc regs. The issue was not that ROS technically used SS type techniques. Or even could clearly be called SS using the ITU definition. Instead, the core issue was: did ROS behave like traditional SS in a way that would cause interference and thus was banned under 220 mhz. And the answer to that is clearly no. It behaves like many other AFSK'ish modes that use an SSB bandwidth. Other legal modes use randomization in a way that by very strict interpretation could be called SS. Had it hopped across 100khz, using vco rf stages, it'd clearly be illegal. Personally, I think it's unfair to compare to the other authors, as they have never had such a (real or perceived) attack on their software, the product of many hours of work. And we had cross language/culture issues at play here as well. This was not an I don't like it, or it does not work well, all authors have to deal with that. It was a we don't think it should be used debate. And much more personal and at risk. So my view is that we should all learn from this, put the swords back in the scabbards, and not alienate someone who took the time to create something innovative, and made it available for use. For free. And think real net loser hard next time before calling the FCC. Ham radio was the in this episode. We are already viewed as squabbling children at the FCC, and this type of episode just reinforces that view of amateur radio. Sincerely, Alan km4ba
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
I disagree. We are required to determine whether a mode is legal before using it. The author initially described ROS as being spread spectrum. Part 97 precludes the use of spread spectrum on HF, but gives no clear definition of spread spectrum. The FCC bears responsibility for this lack of clarity, and so cannot blame amateurs who seek their help in determining whether ROS is legal on HF. They do work for us, after all. In my conversation with Dawn (FCC agent 3820), there was not a whiff of why are you guys annoying us with this nonsense?. She wasn't happy about having her words publicly twisted into ROS is legal on HF, though. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of J. Moen Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 1:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) And think real hard next time before calling the FCC. Ham radio was the net loser in this episode. We are already viewed as squabbling children at the FCC, and this type of episode just reinforces that view of amateur radio. AMEN. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Alan Barrow To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 8:06 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) pd4u_dares wrote: ... considering legal action ... has an apparent plan ... may have understandably frustrated Jose I really have mixed feelings about how this all played out as well. While I don't agree with ban lists, I can see where the software author could get very frustrated at what could be perceived as an attempt to get a new mode banned. My observation is that when an arms length ham goes to the ARRL/FCC with an is this legal it nearly always results in a at first glance we do not think so. Historically, this is nearly always done by people opposed to the new mode, and looking to see it banned. Having seen this happen more than once, and having detailed information on two of those cases, it's the wrong way to handle such a query, even if done in good faith. And like most times this occurs, with more detail, and maybe a bit more objective presentation (like making it clear it's ssb bandwidth with an audio sample), the FCC Input is reversed. (it was never a decision, just an opinion based on the facts at hand) In this particular case it's made much worse by the sparse, poor wording in the fcc regs. The issue was not that ROS technically used SS type techniques. Or even could clearly be called SS using the ITU definition. Instead, the core issue was: did ROS behave like traditional SS in a way that would cause interference and thus was banned under 220 mhz. And the answer to that is clearly no. It behaves like many other AFSK'ish modes that use an SSB bandwidth. Other legal modes use randomization in a way that by very strict interpretation could be called SS. Had it hopped across 100khz, using vco rf stages, it'd clearly be illegal. Personally, I think it's unfair to compare to the other authors, as they have never had such a (real or perceived) attack on their software, the product of many hours of work. And we had cross language/culture issues at play here as well. This was not an I don't like it, or it does not work well, all authors have to deal with that. It was a we don't think it should be used debate. And much more personal and at risk. So my view is that we should all learn from this, put the swords back in the scabbards, and not alienate someone who took the time to create something innovative, and made it available for use. For free. And think real net loser hard next time before calling the FCC. Ham radio was the in this episode. We are already viewed as squabbling children at the FCC, and this type of episode just reinforces that view of amateur radio. Sincerely, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
Ok hang on I just read the statement. Doesn't it say that use of spread spectrum is not permitted below such and such a band. However I see reasonably no different a spread spectrum exists to the USB /lsb/ 20m packet, amtor/ pactor etc etc i.e. 2.4khz or less (and AM is that very wide ) that would challenge that.I know I have been active within this group but cant see the problem. As long as it is within the usual pass band of ssb what's the problem. If what they are saying is true the armatures wouldn't be allowed ssb / am . Communications surely. Unless we used some magic tuning to over th band for one qso? Again I am not the most technically minded but wsy. I may be stepping out of line but although I think the discussion has gone long enough. I don't see why operators should try another mode. Is this not in keeping with the spirit of ham radio after all. \this is an experimental mode and worthy of discussion I agree. For example. I have a sparking power line which the UK Scottish power will do nothing about. How about having a go at the commercial companies for ruining our hobby rather than us all squabbling over something so trivial. As I said before C 24 is on us and I am hoping to receive a 746 Mk 1 and generally am happy to work new dx, speak to locals and usual suspects and generally have a good time. I'd be so much happier if the power company fixed my power line. As s8 on 20m Enough said Toby mm0tob ---Original Message--- From: DaveNF2G Date: 05/03/2010 01:21:29 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) Well, I was going to start using ROS on UHF and maybe occasionally on HF and let the K3UK decision and other chips fall where they might. However, the ARRL just released a statement indicating that the author of the software has lied to the amateur community about the legal status of his program in the USA. Read this if you care: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11377/?nc=1 In view of the foregoing, I will not use ROS in my station. Nor will I recommend that any other ham use it. I will stop short of suggesting that anyone NOT use it (at least on UHF where it is legal here in the USA). 73 de Dave, NF2G
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
Well said Alan I agree, going to the FCC anytime is marching the hobby one step closer to the grave. From: Alan Barrow ml9...@pinztrek.com Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:06:56 -0500 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) pd4u_dares wrote: ... considering legal action ... has an apparent plan ... may have understandably frustrated Jose I really have mixed feelings about how this all played out as well. While I don't agree with ban lists, I can see where the software author could get very frustrated at what could be perceived as an attempt to get a new mode banned. My observation is that when an arms length ham goes to the ARRL/FCC with an is this legal it nearly always results in a at first glance we do not think so. Historically, this is nearly always done by people opposed to the new mode, and looking to see it banned. Having seen this happen more than once, and having detailed information on two of those cases, it's the wrong way to handle such a query, even if done in good faith. And like most times this occurs, with more detail, and maybe a bit more objective presentation (like making it clear it's ssb bandwidth with an audio sample), the FCC Input is reversed. (it was never a decision, just an opinion based on the facts at hand) In this particular case it's made much worse by the sparse, poor wording in the fcc regs. The issue was not that ROS technically used SS type techniques. Or even could clearly be called SS using the ITU definition. Instead, the core issue was: did ROS behave like traditional SS in a way that would cause interference and thus was banned under 220 mhz. And the answer to that is clearly no. It behaves like many other AFSK'ish modes that use an SSB bandwidth. Other legal modes use randomization in a way that by very strict interpretation could be called SS. Had it hopped across 100khz, using vco rf stages, it'd clearly be illegal. Personally, I think it's unfair to compare to the other authors, as they have never had such a (real or perceived) attack on their software, the product of many hours of work. And we had cross language/culture issues at play here as well. This was not an I don't like it, or it does not work well, all authors have to deal with that. It was a we don't think it should be used debate. And much more personal and at risk. So my view is that we should all learn from this, put the swords back in the scabbards, and not alienate someone who took the time to create something innovative, and made it available for use. For free. And think real hard next time before calling the FCC. Ham radio was the net loser in this episode. We are already viewed as squabbling children at the FCC, and this type of episode just reinforces that view of amateur radio. Sincerely, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
WELL SAID 73 de Ron W4LDE On 3/3/2010 10:36 AM, pd4u_dares wrote: ... considering legal action ... has an apparent plan ... may have understandably frustrated Jose --- So as far as I understand it the developer with a Spanish temperament is understandably frustrated by actions of some people making baseless fuss. Baseless since the FCC position is actually opposed to the claims that were made that created the fuzz. It is conclcuded hat Jose's behaviour is not in line with the spirit of ham radio. I ask myself if banning someone's software from amateur radio use, is in line with the ham radio spirit. I think it isn't either. So I think this advice on a public group to ban the use of ROS, is of the same order. And thus I can't understand why even more fuzz is created by banning ROS. Why not apologize for the unnecessary fuzz created around ROS while there was no definitive position from the FCC. I think Jose will then apologize for his apparent plans. Then all the fuzz is over. I hope this fuzz is showing us that we all have far to big ego's, and a lack of patience, understanding and compassion for others. And are apparently merely judging others' behavior in the context of the Ham Radio Spirit but do not scrutinize our own no support threats along the same line. This is hypocrite I think. So let's forget all the fuzz, and continue beta testing further in the name of the HAM Radio Spirit I would say.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
Marc, I'm not saying that, I'd be happy to support ROS and I do think it's a rather good experimental mode. Ok so it is wide but as I said experimental I think Jose did a fantastic job of making a software package for a completely new type of ham radio mode. BUT, The debate is getting out of hand (period) There are reports of much QRM with the mode as no one seems to know where to operate. Or they just don't give a damn where they operate. Have you checked your messages? How many on this subject since the software came out a few weeks ago. 1000+? Is there nothing else we can talk about. People are worried about their operating privileges in certain countries. And why not if there is a problem. There shouldn't be and I don't think there are real ROS haters, just those who probably want nothing more to do with it, this discussion and I can see some people un subscribing from the group or sticking it to the junk filter In keeping with ham radio, I think everyone should calm down a bit and maybe do a bit of operating now that cycle 24 is in progress, rather than worrying about this. Oh and I just had a listen and I cant hear the beacons due to ROS and a packet station. 14.101 is just too close I think. Listen on 14.100 and you will hear. Toby mm0tob ---Original Message--- From: pd4u_dares Date: 03/03/2010 15:59:33 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Toby Burnett ruff...@... .. But to be honest I don'' t think I shall bother too now as there seems much to much grief happening from this. Like I say, it seemed a fair experimental mode but it is wider than .. It'd be nice to see something other than ROS comments on the digi reflector group. For a change. Yeah let's stop our support for ROS on this group as well as on K3UK's sked page... Let us created two camps: the ROS haters and the ROS lovers...the good guys and the bad guys, and all in the name of the ham radio spirit of course!! :-O Marc, PD4U
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
pd4u_dares wrote: ... considering legal action ... has an apparent plan ... may have understandably frustrated Jose I really have mixed feelings about how this all played out as well. While I don't agree with ban lists, I can see where the software author could get very frustrated at what could be perceived as an attempt to get a new mode banned. My observation is that when an arms length ham goes to the ARRL/FCC with an is this legal it nearly always results in a at first glance we do not think so. Historically, this is nearly always done by people opposed to the new mode, and looking to see it banned. Having seen this happen more than once, and having detailed information on two of those cases, it's the wrong way to handle such a query, even if done in good faith. And like most times this occurs, with more detail, and maybe a bit more objective presentation (like making it clear it's ssb bandwidth with an audio sample), the FCC Input is reversed. (it was never a decision, just an opinion based on the facts at hand) In this particular case it's made much worse by the sparse, poor wording in the fcc regs. The issue was not that ROS technically used SS type techniques. Or even could clearly be called SS using the ITU definition. Instead, the core issue was: did ROS behave like traditional SS in a way that would cause interference and thus was banned under 220 mhz. And the answer to that is clearly no. It behaves like many other AFSK'ish modes that use an SSB bandwidth. Other legal modes use randomization in a way that by very strict interpretation could be called SS. Had it hopped across 100khz, using vco rf stages, it'd clearly be illegal. Personally, I think it's unfair to compare to the other authors, as they have never had such a (real or perceived) attack on their software, the product of many hours of work. And we had cross language/culture issues at play here as well. This was not an I don't like it, or it does not work well, all authors have to deal with that. It was a we don't think it should be used debate. And much more personal and at risk. So my view is that we should all learn from this, put the swords back in the scabbards, and not alienate someone who took the time to create something innovative, and made it available for use. For free. And think real hard next time before calling the FCC. Ham radio was the net loser in this episode. We are already viewed as squabbling children at the FCC, and this type of episode just reinforces that view of amateur radio. Sincerely, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
In spite of temperaments (my roots are spanish somewhere in the past) it has gone to extremes it never should have got even near to. Statements like FCC will have to pay me to see my code, the threat of legal action to someone who just was looking for his own spectrum management administration approval, the threat of banning certain callsigns, plus the following spanish statement in his web page: --- FCC: ROS LEGAL IN USA http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/fcc-ros-legal-in-usa/ 2 March, 2010 by José Alberto Nieto Ros It ended the controversy about whether ROS is legal in USA or not. For which they insisted on it was illegal: A mamarla --- I understand he meaning of the final part like Suck my p , which is not exactly nice or well mannered. From my point of view, just stating It ended the controversy about whether ROS is legal in USA or not was enough. Jose, CO2JA --- El 03/03/2010 11:16 a.m., Toby Burnett escribió: Marc, I'm not saying that, I'd be happy to support ROS and I do think it's a rather good experimental mode. Ok so it is wide but as I said experimental I think Jose did a fantastic job of making a software package for a completely new type of ham radio mode. BUT, The debate is getting out of hand (period) There are reports of much QRM with the mode as no one seems to know where to operate. Or they just don't give a damn where they operate. Have you checked your messages? How many on this subject since the software came out a few weeks ago. 1000+? Is there nothing else we can talk about. People are worried about their operating privileges in certain countries. And why not if there is a problem. There shouldn't be and I don't think there are real ROS haters, just those who probably want nothing more to do with it, this discussion and I can see some people un subscribing from the group or sticking it to the junk filter In keeping with ham radio, I think everyone should calm down a bit and maybe do a bit of operating now that cycle 24 is in progress, rather than worrying about this. Oh and I just had a listen and I cant hear the beacons due to ROS and a packet station. 14.101 is just too close I think. Listen on 14.100 and you will hear. Toby mm0tob /---Original Message---/ /*From:*/ pd4u_dares mailto:p...@hotmail.com /*Date:*/ 03/03/2010 15:59:33 /*To:*/ digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com /*Subject:*/ [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Toby Burnett ruff...@... .. But to be honest I don'' t think I shall bother too now as there seems much to much grief happening from this. Like I say, it seemed a fair experimental mode but it is wider than .. It'd be nice to see something other than ROS comments on the digi reflector group. For a change. Yeah let's stop our support for ROS on this group as well as on K3UK's sked page... Let us created two camps: the ROS haters and the ROS lovers...the good guys and the bad guys, and all in the name of the ham radio spirit of course!! :-O Marc, PD4U -- MSc. Ing. José Angel Amador Fundora Profesor Auxiliar Departamento de Telecomunicaciones Facultad de Ing. Eléctrica, CUJAE Calle 114 # 11901 e/119 y 127 Marianao 19390 Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba Tel: (53 7) 266-3445 Mail: amador at electrica.cujae.edu.cu
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
I really don't think there any ROS haters. ROS is a mode that is fun to use and works well. There may be some who complain that it interferes with the NCDXF beacon network, but the suggested frequency was then moved upward, in the true spirit of cooperation. However, there is a misconception about those whose motives are only to obey the regulations they MUST live under, and the understandable need to clarify what is legal or not, so they do not risk penalties or citations for illegal operation. The problem was created by the author himself by first posting a seven page document purportedly claiming it was FHSS (and in no uncertain terms!), and then totally revising the description to say it is actually FSK144 (at the suggestion of someone who said that would make it legal somehow). It was the author that first characterized that anyone who is not with me is against me and that anyone even questioning the legality of ROS should be banned ( such as myself) or punished ( locked out of using the mode by being singled out and included in a non grata list). I do feel sympathy for Jose, and appreciation for his very fine work, but it was HIS mistake in the beginning and continuing to make more mistakes that made it even worse that has led to the current situation. He is not being banned by Andy, only not actively promoted, which I think is a totally appropriate and diplomatic response to the banning of others. Especially in an open forum and world of amateur radio, banning or punishing anyone for their stated opinions is simply unacceptable. An apology from Jose might result in forgiveness from those harmed and we could then can get on with the job of either using the mode, or being sure we use it in accordance with our own administrations, or petition for use under whatever limitations are necessary to accomodate other users of the same bands in a cooperative manner. 73 - Skip KH6TY pd4u_dares wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Toby Burnett ruff...@... .. But to be honest I don'' t think I shall bother too now as there seems much to much grief happening from this. Like I say, it seemed a fair experimental mode but it is wider than .. It'd be nice to see something other than ROS comments on the digi reflector group. For a change. Yeah let's stop our support for ROS on this group as well as on K3UK's sked page... Let us created two camps: the ROS haters and the ROS lovers...the good guys and the bad guys, and all in the name of the ham radio spirit of course!! :-O Marc, PD4U
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
pd4u_dares wrote: Though I have some doubts that there actually was a debate. There have been arguments as in all debates. But the figurative meaning of the arguments was getting the overhand over the literal meaning of arguments in a debate...HIHI Marc, on many occasions I have had to decide will anything I say alter their opinion and, would anything they say alter mine? If the answer to both parts is 'no' then there is no debate, it's just an argument where neither side will back down. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
pd4u_dares wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Toby Burnett ruff...@... .. But to be honest I don'' t think I shall bother too now as there seems much to much grief happening from this. Like I say, it seemed a fair experimental mode but it is wider than .. It'd be nice to see something other than ROS comments on the digi reflector group. For a change. Yeah let's stop our support for ROS on this group as well as on K3UK's sked page... Let us created two camps: the ROS haters and the ROS lovers...the good guys and the bad guys, and all in the name of the ham radio spirit of course!! Unfortunately, Marc, it has happened so many times in the past. In the end, it all boils down to 'do you want to use it, or do you not want to use it?' If you do, then do, if you don't, then don't... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
Alan Barrow wrote: And think real hard next time before calling the FCC. Ham radio was the net loser in this episode. We are already viewed as squabbling children at the FCC, and this type of episode just reinforces that view of amateur radio. And so it was in the UK over the endless debates about Packet/AX:25, PSK31 and the use of satellite transponders from VHF to UHF. In the end, all of those debates were ended by a 'don't be so silly' statement that changed not one rule, but told people to 'play nice', in effect. Dave (G0DJA)
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
Gang: I am out of here for now, will try again in a month when the smoke settles.. Fred CIW649/VE3FAL CFARS Member SATERN Member SATERN Amateur Radio Liaison Officer DEC Amethyst District ARES Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Suggesting calling frequencies: Modes 500Hz 3583,7073,14073,18103, 21073,24923, 28123 . Wider modes e.g. Olivia 32/1000, ROS16, ALE: 14109.7088. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
Pst! Marc! Uh, 'scuse me but the only one uttering such thoughts thus far is YOU. No one else, just YOU. You might want to cool down the dramatics and take a breath, less you attract others with the same flair and end up creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV OH, and BTW, let me add that, in the spirit of fairness, I have absolutely ZERO desire to BETA test ROS nor any other software suite the author creates for submission to the Amateur Community. That's MY own public declaration, as a group of ONE. AND NO, you can't join. C'mon, Marc. How can you possibly have enough interested parties, in something like ROS, to create GROUPS of haters and lovers? PULEEZE! - Original Message - From: pd4u_dares p...@hotmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 10:45 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Toby Burnett ruff...@... .. But to be honest I don'' t think I shall bother too now as there seems much to much grief happening from this. Like I say, it seemed a fair experimental mode but it is wider than .. It'd be nice to see something other than ROS comments on the digi reflector group. For a change. Yeah let's stop our support for ROS on this group as well as on K3UK's sked page... Let us created two camps: the ROS haters and the ROS lovers...the good guys and the bad guys, and all in the name of the ham radio spirit of course!! :-O Marc, PD4U
