As I previously predicted, an FCC agent has interpreted FCC Rules, saying ROS is Spread Spectrum. ARRL staff have also done the same.
In the FCC response to an inquiry initiated by Timothy J. Lilley - N3TL, The FCC Agent 3820 stated this: ""ROS" is viewed as "spread spectrum," and the creator of the system describes it as that. We assume that he knows what he created." That statement by FCC Agent 3820 is all any ham in USA needs to know. Use ROS on HF, and you risk fines for breaking the FCC Rules. There is now only 4 options, for USA hams who still want to use ROS on HF bands: 1. Operate ROS... knowing that you are breaking the FCC Rules, and roll the dice, hoping you don't get caught. 2. Go on an uphill battle to change the FCC Rules, and possibly win or lose after a year or more of legal work. 3. When the FCC sends you an enforcement letter "Notice of Apparent Liability", and asks you to show cause or risk citation and/or payment of fine, simply tell the FCC "please forgive me, I didn't know it is illegal to use Spread Spectrum on HF, and honestly I won't do it again." Several years ago, I started writing about how hams in USA are falling behind in technology due to antiquated FCC rules. I pointed to several excellent modes and methods of operation that USA hams don't have the freedom to use, but hams in most other countries are at liberty to use. This situation is all due to FCC rules that were forged in the 20th century and based upon old methods of using radio. Boxed-in by early limitations, there is no way to think out of the box. Some hams laughed and said: "PSK31 and RTTY is all we need; why should we care? Why should we want to use any new modes?" Well, USA hams... Welcome to our Technology Jail! Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA > 22 Feb 2010, KQ6XA wrote: > > Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping Spread > Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio operators to > obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use of ROS on HF > without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise, hams will > need an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA. > > Sadly, this may lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams. > > If ROS Modem had simply provided the technical specifications of the > emission, and not called it "Spread Spectrum", there would have been a chance > for it to be easily adopted by Ham Radio operators in USA. > > But, the ROS modem designer is rightfully proud of the design, and he lives > in a country that is not bound by FCC rules, and probably had little or no > knowledge of how his advertising might prevent thousands of hams from using > it in USA. > > But, as they say, "You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung". > > ROS signal can be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other types of > n-ary-FSK presently in widespread use by USA hams. The specific algorithms > for signal process and format could simply have been documented without > calling it Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Since it is a narrowband > signal (using the FCC and ITU definitions of narrowband emission = less than > 3kHz) within the width of an SSB passband, it does not fit the traditional > FHSS description as a conventional wideband technique. > > It probably would not have been viewed as FHSS under the spirit and intention > of the FCC rules. It doesn't hop the VFO frequency. It simply FSKs according > to a programmable algorithm, and it meets the infamous 1kHz shift 300 baud > rule. > http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#307f3 > > This is a typical example of how outdated the present FCC rules are, keeping > USA hams in "TECHNOLOGY JAIL" while the rest of the world's hams move forward > with digital technology. It should come as no surprise that most of the new > ham radio digital modes are not being developed in USA! > > But, for a moment, let's put aside the issue of current FCC "prohibition" > against Spread Spectrum and/or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum, and how it > relates to ROS mode. Let's look at "bandwidth". > > There is the other issue of "bandwidth" that some misguided USA hams have > brought up here and in other forums related to ROS. Some superstitious hams > seem to erroneously think that there is an over-reaching "bandwidth limit" in > the FCC rules for data/text modes on HF that might indicate what part of the > ham band to operate it or not operate it. > > FACT: > "There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on HF data/text emission in USA > ham bands, except for the sub-band and band edges." > > FACT: > "FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on "content" of the emission, > not bandwidth." > > New SDR radios have the potential to transmit and receive wider bandwidths > than the traditional 3kHz SSB passband. We will see a lot more development in > this area of technology in the future, and a lot more gray areas of 20th > century FCC rules that inhibit innovation and progress for ham radio HF > digital technology in the 21st century. > > Several years ago, there was a proposal to FCC to provide regulation by > bandwidth rather than content. However, it failed to be adopted, and ARRL's > petition to limit bandwidth was withdrawn > http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/04/27/101/?nc=1 > > Thus, USA hams will continue to be in Technology Jail without access to many > new modes in the foreseeable future :( > > Best Wishes, > Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA >
