From: John <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010   Time: 23:04:49

>So as to not continue growing the ROS legality discussion even further, 
>I would like to ask a fairly simple question.
>
>How will the modulation be determined from any SSB transmitter when the 
>source of the modulation is via the microphone audio input of that 
>transmitter?
>
>Simply stated, how would any digital mode create anything other than 
>some form of FSK simply by inputting a tone at the microphone input?
>
>Regardless of the software being used to generate the tone(s), at any 
>given time there is nothing more than the absence or presence of a tone 
>at the audio input of the transmitter.

[Snip]

>With this discussion, how do we arbitrarily change the transmitter 
>output definitions? I am truly asking because that is a concept beyond 
>my feeble mind. I really do not know. To me, regardless of the "source" 
>of the modulation itself, the modulation still remains an offset of the 
>carrier frequency by the frequency of the input tone.
>
[More snip]

The emission designations were devised a long, long time ago when life 
was simple, and are now enshrined in ITU recommendations. Unfortunately 
they are not really *emission* designations, describing just the 
characteristics of the *emitted* signal -- the designations also specify 
the *method* of generating the emitted signals and the *content* as 
well. This leads to the utterly ridiculous designations that you see in:

http://life.itu.ch/radioclub/rr/ap01.htm

Do you realize, for example, that when you are sending Morse code, the 
emission designator is now 100HA1AAN, and when you are talking on SSB 
the designation is 2K70J3EJN?

(Incidentally, there is no mention of spread spectrum on that page).

This is just codifying for the sake of codifying, and I do not believe 
the fine distinctions between method and content have any practical use. 
As technology continues to outstrip the legislators, the situation will 
only get worse.

Bottom line is that to get things changed to something more meaningful 
and useful, you have to convince the ITU. This will not happen any time 
soon, so we are stuck for now with the useless designator mud pie.

John, your mind is not feeble. You are applying common sense in a very 
non-common-sense world.

-- 
73
Ian, G3NRW






























Reply via email to