Without intending to reopen the argument about spread spectrum, the FCC has spoken about the legality of the mode. A few US hams will argue that it isn't spread spectrum since it isn't any wider than a SSB channel. Spread spectrum has no bandwidth definition, it is a transmission technique plain and simple. The developer admitted that it is spread spectrum then changed it only when it was pointed out that spread spectrum is illegal in the US for amateurs below 220MHz. Any US hams that do decide to use the mode are risking their license. As someone pointed out somewhere, it won't be the requirement of the FCC to prove that it is Spread Spectrum when they issue the fine; it will be on the US ham to prove it isn't. That's an expensive battle that no one should want to take on...especially since the author originally defined it as such. The FCC has spoken (correctly or incorrectly) about this, so the issue should be closed here in the US. What concerns me even more is the anti-ham attitude of the developer. However, he was pretty smart in that he did manage to find a willing cadre of beta-testers for a system that ultimately has an unspecified objective. He is not a ham, so why target hams except that we're experimenters by nature, so he has built-in beta testers. Between that, his shoddy and amateurish attempts at coding and security, and the "uncontrolled" email access that the program provides (give up access to my gmail account, no way!), one should be careful in allowing this software to reside on their computer. All of this is a shame as it is an interesting, albeit very wide, weak-signal mode. Dave
Real radio bounces off the sky _____ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rein A Sent: Wednesday, 02 June, 2010 18:39 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hello Dave, K3DCW, and all others, What an eyeopener, that QRZ forum! http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742. Have been there in the beginning of this venture, but after having been shouted down on the other Yahoo group by some individuals and their uninformed follower's, I was under the impression that as far as the US ham population went this had become a "dead" issue, little interest, and the "lets move on" motto in place. Far from that, it appears. I like to use this method and in spite of its author, figurehow more or less useful it is in Weak Signal. Like to refer to a serious article in the VHF/UHF/EME/microwave magazine DUBUS. Reporting on some serious testing and comparisons with the EME designed WSJT method(s) by K1JT. Tests were done and reported by VK7MO, a well known weak signal person. In my opinion this is drifting into an area that is not good for amateur radio. The author refuses to listen, understand, address amateur radio licensing, domestic and international oversight and regulation, frequency coordination, and I can go on and on. Keeps referring to me as the "ARRL's messenger" as I tried so many times, to explain the difference between a radio amateur organization and an US Federal Regulatory Agency with world wide connection to the same in other countries. It is for instance, a big puzzle how an author of a software protocol can assign frequencies without checking with other users. Anyway, glad to see that I not just a single trouble maker as I am probably classified in certain circles. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> , "Dave" <hfradio...@...> wrote: > > Rein, > > There are several (around a dozen I think) amateur operators that are > "prohibited" from using ROS by having their call signs hard-coded into a > persona-non-grata listing in ROS. I am proud to be one of those ops. This > has been extensively documented on QRZ in the following thread: > <http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742> > http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742. > > I didn't think that John was one of them, but it has been awhile since the > list was looked at last. > > Dave > K3DCW > > > _____ > > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> ] On > Behalf Of Rein A > Sent: Wednesday, 02 June, 2010 17:12 > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP > > > > > Hello John, > > If your situation is not due to an installation problem > or other, but is part of the distributed software, planned, > programmed in, it might well have other consequences. > > ROS modem is under consideration to be incorporated in other > amateur radio digital packages. > Think about that angle. > > 73 Rein W6SZ > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> > , "John Becker, WØJAB" <w0jab@> wrote: > > > > Rein > > > > Really don't know what to say at this point. > > Still trying to understand why my call was added to > > the list of calls "not able" to use the ROS program. > > > > But since Jose will not say I'll just move on to things > > other then ROS. But I'm not the only one that this > > has happen to. No big deal I have gotten over it long ago. > > > > Now I'm just guessing but I think he may have misunderstood > > something I may have said in a post. Really not sure for the reason > > but since he is not talking about it I guess anyone of us that have > > been banned from using the program will never know. > > > > It all started when he posted a update to his program and then I > > found out that I could no longer us it. Like others. > > > > But I still have one of the first versions on a memory stick > > that I could use on the other computer if needed. > > > > Seems he is the *only* one that's knows and at this time is > > not saying. So be it - I got over it long ago. > > > > John, W0JAB > > >
