The FCC didn't do anything arbitrary or capricious. They read a specification
provided by the author of the software that stated that ROS is a
spread-spectrum mode. They then told the person asking for the FCC's opinion
that they should go by what the author wrote and not use ROS on HF.
The author now states that his original document was incorrect and ROS is not
spread-spectrum but has not published a new specification. If it isn't SS, the
new specification will clear the way for U.S hams to use the mode.
FCC regulations don't state that the FCC has any obligation to make
determinations about a new mode. They state that the author must publish a
specification and each amateur must look at that and determine the legality.
73,
John
KD6OZH
----- Original Message -----
From: DaveNF2G
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 13:26 UTC
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum
> And, the response from the FCC doesn't provide any FCC position or
interpretation of ROS, and further says "The Commission does not determine if a
particular mode "truly" represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the
rules."
Forget the petitions for waivers.
File a federal lawsuit stating that the FCC's "determination" that ROS is SS
and therefore unlawful on HF bands in the USA is arbitrary and capricious,
based on the above statement that they have abdicated their statutory
responsibility to make a technical examination of the proposed mode to see
whether or not it fits their regulations.
Yeah, I know, filing suit is an inherently unfriendly act. The FCC has been
unfriendly to anything that is not a major corporate money maker for quite some
time now. Time to start pushing the Commission back on track.
73 de Dave, NF2G
