John wrote: > Hi HI Dave ...... > > Unfortunately, you may indeed be right. > > As my posts on this topic speak for themselves, I never once stated either > way if it was or was not legal. My question all along has been, did the law > against the use of spread spectrum even apply in this case at all, based on > what the program actually did, not what was claimed. As I read the FCC rules > here in this country, the rule does NOT make a mode illegal because the > author "claimed" it to be spread spectrum. It makes the "transmission" of > spread spectrum signals on the HF amateur bands below 225-250 mhz. > > This program never did meet the test for making it actually spread spectrum > other than the authors claim of it in his own documentation. Indeed, it is > likely just a language barrier that is not all that uncommon. A simply > translation issue should not really be labeled as egregious. > > As you imply, we will see how the nay say'ers fair in this. there are indeed > those that can't bear to not be the ones in control of the crowd. Me, I > really don't care one way or the other, but do prefer that real facts be > discussed rather than conjured up arguments based on inapplicable rules. > > 73 sir
Please, don't call me 'sir', in modern day UK, I don't call anyone 'Sir'... That may now be a cultural difference that I have to confront when I visit the Dayton Hamconvention later this year, but few people call other people 'Sir' over here now, unless it's a deference in a shop where a shop assistant is trying to pretend that the customer is King. As in "Yes, Sir, what would Sir like? The pin-stripes might suit Sir best" You are probably correct in saying that this whole debate was based upon a misunderstanding, but unfortunately that misunderstanding has now grown. Which is why I still suggest that, until it is properly resolved, it is probably off topic and needs its own forum. Regards Dave (G0DJA)
