In order for amateurs in the U.S. to use any RTTY/data mode other than Baudot,
ASCII or AMTOR over 2FSK they must be able to point to a published technical
specification for the potocol that shows that it is legal. It was condition
that we all agreed to when we were issued a license. When this is done the
problem will be solved.
73,
John
KD6OZH
----- Original Message -----
From: John
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 03:41 UTC
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
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
