Hi Trevor. In my opinion, your points are very well taken.
It appears to me strange, at best, that an US federal branch is using an hobby club with a membership ratio of some 50 % of the total US population to communicate via thatclub matters of law. Even with the 50 % membership, the percentage of members following the day in and out operations is much lower. I can imagine perhaps one reason that this has not happened, a lack of resources at the Federal Communication Commission though that seems to be unlikely. The FCC has very effective ways to communicate with us, if need be, I am a member of the ARRL and have been that for 40 years. 73 Rein W6SZ -----Original Message----- >From: "Trevor ." <m5...@yahoo.co.uk> >Sent: Mar 5, 2010 5:13 AM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS > >All the ARRL announcement really does is reference the FCC statement of Feb. >23. > >That statement said the FCC was not going to say if it considered ROS to be >spread spectrum. Individual operators were the ones responsible for making a >decision. > >The FCC has never said ROS is "illegal" nor have the ARRL. > >I've had a trawl through the FCC site but couldn't find a definition there of >what they mean by the words "Spread Spectrum" and it's their definition that >matters not other peoples. > >If the FCC were concerned about the use of ROS on HF you would have thought >they would have written to at least one of the US stations that they had >observed using it and informed them of a breach of regulations. I am not aware >that they have done so. > >73 Trevor M5AKA > > > > > > >------------------------------------ > >Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page >http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html >Suggesting calling frequencies: Modes <500Hz 3583,7073,14073,18103, >21073,24923, 28123 . Wider modes e.g. Olivia 32/1000, ROS16, ALE: 14109.7088. >Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
