OK, I am starting to agree with Dave now .... and with Andy as before ... this is starting to now become circular .....
It has now been solidly established that ROS is FSK, NOT SS, by the authors own words. The author NEVER approached the FCC for an "OPINION" about his "unfinished" work at all. Indeed he made it clear the whole thing was still "BETA" .... In the US, when has an "OPINION" of someone lower than the enforcing authority made anything legal or illegal? It was only an opinion of one of the agents (agent #3820) based on the incomplete data provided to them. had I been that agent, I would have said the same thing under the circumstances of only having incomplete, inaccurate documentation presented to me. Jose, the author, has already indicated he intends to correct the error in his updated documentation which should remove all questions about legality in the US. It is not necessary for him to provide anyone with his algorithm so long as he continues to provide his program so that anyone can monitor the transmissions. The transmissions all fall within FCC guidelines already, that has never been argued. The only real argument has been, is it SS or FSK. If it is FSK, it is NOT illegal. The spread spectrum rule simply does not apply here. What more will the outcome of this discussion ultimately determine? Presently, the FCC is so understaffed due to budgetary constraints, my guess is that they really do not have the resources needed to chase such questionable things as this in the first place. Can anyone imagine our enforcement group is going to expend the kind of resources necessary to enforce something that is likely not really an issue in the first place? They are not there just sitting and waiting to jump on anyone "potentially" violating such a questionable matter in the first place. As for the requirements of how this software generates or does not generate it's spectrum should no longer even be a question since the only reason it was ever argued in the first place was based on the authors misunderstanding of OUR (the US) definition of SS versus FSK. Once he (the program author) understood the difference in that definition, he immediately noted his program was NOT SS at all, but was in fact FSK. Argument should be over? TRUE? NOT TRUE? Dave, where would we go from here ..... if we were in your country? John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY <kh...@...> wrote: > > It is a NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT requirement (out of three). The point > is that if that is not the way the spreading is done in ROS, ROS is NOT > spread spectrum. PROVE, not just claim, that it is not, and the battle > is won. > > 73 - Skip KH6TY > > > > > Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > > > On 02/23/2010 09:00 PM, KH6TY wrote: > > > > > The distinguishing characteristic of spread spectrum is spreading by a > > > code INDEPENDENT of the data. FM for example, creates carriers depending > > > upon the audio frequency and amplitude. SSB creates carriers at a > > > frequency dependent upon the tone frequency, and RTTY at a pair of set > > > frequencirs depending upon the shift or the tones used to generate > > > shift. In spread spectrum, as Jose has written, an independent code is > > > used for the spreading, one of the requirements to classify it as spread > > > spectrum. > > > > One of the requirements - not the single determining > > characteristic by any means. > > > > >From a quick look through the fldigi source code, > > MFSK and Olivia appear to use a pseudo-random code > > as well, to provide robustness against narrow band > > interference. > > > > >From several places in src/include/jalocha/pj_mfsk.h > > > > static const uint64_t ScramblingCode = 0xE257E6D0291574ECLL; > > > > -- > > All rights reversed. > > > > >
