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
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 moder
Jose,
Is THIS really true: "[T]he information contained on the ROS Web site
was /not/ provided by the FCC."
la5vna S
On 04.03.2010 23:10, KH6TY wrote:
> Unfortunately, it appears that ROS is actually FHSS, as originally
described on the ROS website, and therefore is not legal for US ha
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. :-(
From the ARRL website,
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11377/?nc=1,
"When queried about this new statement, the FCC's Consumer
