Andy obrien wrote: > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA-?o=6>Joe, > N8FQ... > > http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html > > Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF. Is there another part of > part 97 I am missing ? > > Andy K3UK >
I'd actually say that the term 'spread spectrum' is actually incorrect as far as RIO is concerned. It's actually no more 'spread' than some of the other digi-modes and less 'spread' than some versions of Olivia. I think real 'spread spectrum' uses many different bands, selecting the best band/bands and width set-up and has a much wider 'bandwidth' than RIO does. Does anyone have a definition of real spread spectrum? As I hate to think what will happen when/if people with even less knowledge than I have of what 'real' spread spectrum is get the idea that RIO is something that it is actually not and start their inevitable campaign of 'It's illegal, it's immoral and it makes you fat', to use the words of the song... Dave (G0DJA)
