[digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
Dear Jose, It is very simple: 1. You are the designer of ROS, and you say ROS is Spread Spectrum. 2. FCC says 'The ROS designer says ROS is Spread Spectrum' so we believe this is true. 3. Spread Spectrum is not allowed below 222MHz for USA hams by FCC Rules. 4. Hams in USA must follow FCC rules. Even if the rules are bad. Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@... wrote: This is very simple. Chip64 is SS, however there is not problems with anybody, because people dont  go propagating by all forums hey, is illegal, is illegal I think some people must thing in improve the Ham Radio, instead of want to be noticed from the beginning saying is illegal. From now on, anyone who thinks that ROS is illegal, say to me, because I am going to create a filter that people without autorithation tu use the software.
[digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
The greatest danger for Ham Radio is turning it into a Museum. From 100years ago it was an important part of tecnology development, and starters of Broadcasters. Since the age of PC most youngsters dived into PC - Internet- Cellphones- so called Social forums etc. We need to go on developing and experimenting or the hobby will die. Digital modes is maybe the most important part of this. Look to TV and Radio. They are going digital and are now ahead of us. History looks like driving a car with breaks on. CW-AM-RTTY-SSB-AMTOR-PACTOR1, 2, 3 Packet, FS forward kompression B0 B1, Winlink B2F All the newer sound card modes. D-Star. etc Always a discussion, is the new stuff legal or not. Difficult to listen with only the old gear. Off course no encryptions. Protocolls open, or easy to get listening equipment. No one is arguing against that. The Dansish ham radio organization has a good name: (translated) Experimenting Danish Radioamateurs. EDR. This should be what the rest of us aim for as well. Keep on the good work for development and experimentation. 73 de la7um Finn --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@... wrote: This is very simple. Chip64 is SS, however there is not problems with anybody, because people dont  go propagating by all forums hey, is illegal, is illegal I think some people must thing in improve the Ham Radio, instead of want to be noticed from the beginning saying is illegal. From now on, anyone who thinks that ROS is illegal, say to me, because I am going to create a filter that people without autorithation tu use the software. De: W2XJ w...@... Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 02:48 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response  Agreed, the more letters to the FCC the more problems for amateur radio. If someone sent a letter to the FCC about Chip64 they would get the same response that the FCC gave for ROS. The FCC only gets involved when someone complains. I think that they would love to have simpler and less restrictive rules to enforce. It's the public that opposes the removal of restrictions that they beleive favor their group. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message -  From:  jose alberto  nieto ros mailto:nietorosdj@ yahoo.es   To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com   Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 01:02  UTC  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC  request and response       That is a Spread Spectrum in all his expression and ¿Chip64 is legal?.  Then what are we discuss?   De:silversmj silver...@yahoo. com Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010  01:46 Asunto: [digitalradio]  Re: ROS . FCC request and response     Greetings All, Hmmm . . . with that stated, I guess all US stations  should cease Chip64 emissions as it is described using SS, see http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation  s/techchar/ Chip64.pdf http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Chip64.pdf (Note: ARRL) Someone should mention this  to the ARRL VA Section NTS as they apparently run a Net using Chip64,  see http://aresracesofv a.org/index. php?option=  com_content view=article id=88Itemid= 95 http://aresracesofv a.org/index. php?option= com_contentview=articleid=88Itemid=95 (Also note:  ARRL) I have played with the earlier versions in RX and found it fun  and interesting, but 2250Hz wide BW in the CW portions of the Bands is a  little much. RTTY Tests are rough enough. As was mentioned before by an  individual, it is easy for the for bureaucrats/ authorities to just say no,  especially if they already have a busy day and don't want to say they need  more information. 73 GL de Mike  KB6WFC     From: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast. net Reply-To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:16:22 - To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response       
[digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
Greetings All, Hmmm . . . with that stated, I guess all US stations should cease Chip64 emissions as it is described using SS, see http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/Chip64.pdf (Note: ARRL) Someone should mention this to the ARRL VA Section NTS as they apparently run a Net using Chip64, see http://aresracesofva.org/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=88Itemid=95 (Also note: ARRL) I have played with the earlier versions in RX and found it fun and interesting, but 2250Hz wide BW in the CW portions of the Bands is a little much. RTTY Tests are rough enough. As was mentioned before by an individual, it is easy for the for bureaucrats/authorities to just say no, especially if they already have a busy day and don't want to say they need more information. 73 GL de Mike KB6WFC
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
silversmj wrote: I have played with the earlier versions in RX and found it fun and interesting, but 2250Hz wide BW in the CW portions of the Bands is a little much. RTTY Tests are rough enough. As was mentioned before by an individual, it is easy for the for bureaucrats/authorities to just say no, especially if they already have a busy day and don't want to say they need more information. 73 GL de Mike KB6WFC Mi Mike, Not been involved with Chip64, so I cannot comment. However your comments about apparent bandwidth, if we are intending to be good neighbours, is valid, n my opinion. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
That is a Spread Spectrum in all his expression and ¿Chip64 is legal?. Then what are we discuss? De: silversmj silver...@yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 01:46 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response Greetings All, Hmmm . . . with that stated, I guess all US stations should cease Chip64 emissions as it is described using SS, see http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Chip64.pdf (Note: ARRL) Someone should mention this to the ARRL VA Section NTS as they apparently run a Net using Chip64, see http://aresracesofv a.org/index. php?option= com_content view=article id=88Itemid= 95 (Also note: ARRL) I have played with the earlier versions in RX and found it fun and interesting, but 2250Hz wide BW in the CW portions of the Bands is a little much. RTTY Tests are rough enough. As was mentioned before by an individual, it is easy for the for bureaucrats/ authorities to just say no, especially if they already have a busy day and don't want to say they need more information. 73 GL de Mike KB6WFC
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
Agreed, the more letters to the FCC the more problems for amateur radio. From: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast.net Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:16:22 - To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response If someone sent a letter to the FCC about Chip64 they would get the same response that the FCC gave for ROS. The FCC only gets involved when someone complains. I think that they would love to have simpler and less restrictive rules to enforce. It's the public that opposes the removal of restrictions that they beleive favor their group. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jose alberto nieto ros mailto:nietoro...@yahoo.es To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 01:02 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response That is a Spread Spectrum in all his expression and ¿Chip64 is legal?. Then what are we discuss? De: silversmj silver...@yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 01:46 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response Greetings All, Hmmm . . . with that stated, I guess all US stations should cease Chip64 emissions as it is described using SS, see http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Chip64.pdf http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/Chip64.pdf (Note: ARRL) Someone should mention this to the ARRL VA Section NTS as they apparently run a Net using Chip64, see http://aresracesofv a.org/index. php?option= com_content view=article id=88Itemid= 95 http://aresracesofva.org/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=88Item id=95 (Also note: ARRL) I have played with the earlier versions in RX and found it fun and interesting, but 2250Hz wide BW in the CW portions of the Bands is a little much. RTTY Tests are rough enough. As was mentioned before by an individual, it is easy for the for bureaucrats/ authorities to just say no, especially if they already have a busy day and don't want to say they need more information. 73 GL de Mike KB6WFC
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
This is very simple. Chip64 is SS, however there is not problems with anybody, because people dont go propagating by all forums hey, is illegal, is illegal I think some people must thing in improve the Ham Radio, instead of want to be noticed from the beginning saying is illegal. From now on, anyone who thinks that ROS is illegal, say to me, because I am going to create a filter that people without autorithation tu use the software. De: W2XJ w...@w2xj.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 02:48 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response Agreed, the more letters to the FCC the more problems for amateur radio. If someone sent a letter to the FCC about Chip64 they would get the same response that the FCC gave for ROS. The FCC only gets involved when someone complains. I think that they would love to have simpler and less restrictive rules to enforce. It's the public that opposes the removal of restrictions that they beleive favor their group. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jose alberto nieto ros mailto:nietorosdj@ yahoo.es To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 01:02 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response That is a Spread Spectrum in all his expression and ¿Chip64 is legal?. Then what are we discuss? De:silversmj silver...@yahoo. com Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 01:46 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response Greetings All, Hmmm . . . with that stated, I guess all US stations should cease Chip64 emissions as it is described using SS, see http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Chip64.pdf http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Chip64.pdf (Note: ARRL) Someone should mention this to the ARRL VA Section NTS as they apparently run a Net using Chip64, see http://aresracesofv a.org/index. php?option= com_content view=article id=88Itemid= 95 http://aresracesofv a.org/index. php?option= com_contentview=articleid=88Itemid=95 (Also note: ARRL) I have played with the earlier versions in RX and found it fun and interesting, but 2250Hz wide BW in the CW portions of the Bands is a little much. RTTY Tests are rough enough. As was mentioned before by an individual, it is easy for the for bureaucrats/ authorities to just say no, especially if they already have a busy day and don't want to say they need more information. 73 GL de Mike KB6WFC From: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast. net Reply-To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:16:22 - To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
