I see you have not idea waht is the meaning of Spread spectrum. Spread spectrum reduce energy density.
________________________________ De: John B. Stephensen <[email protected]> Para: [email protected] Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 03:55 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Convolutional coding and Viterbi decoding may increase the occupied bandwidth but they also decrease the amount of power required to communicate. In some cases, like trellis-coded modulation, the bandwidth stays the same even though the power required decreases by a factor of 2-4. Spread spectrum increases the occupied bandwidth without the decrease in power. 73, John KD6OZH ----- Original Message ----- >From: W2XJ >To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com >Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 01:24 UTC >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` > > >I have a different take on this. There are a number of modes that uses >vertebrae coding which could be mis-described as spread spectrum by some. The >problem with part 97 is that it tries to be as broad as possible where >technical parameters are concerned. In this case it causes things to be vague. > There are many things that can be described as spread spectrum that are not >by definition in part 97. FM would be one of them. Anytime information is >transmitted in a wider bandwidth than necessary it could be described as >spread spectrum. This would include some low noise modes. The problem is that >we petitioned the FCC to loosen SS rules and the more vague those rules are >made the more open to debate they are. > >The worst that can happen under the rules if one would be operating ROS in the >phone segment would be an order to cease such operation if the comish so >ordered. > > > > >> >> >>Skip >> >>You are over thinking this. The FCC said as they always do that you as a >>licensee must possess the technical skill to evaluate whether or not a >>particular mode meets the rules. On Jose’s part a better technical >>description and some clarification would be very helpful to this end. I think >>just looking at the output on a spectrum analyzer would also be quite >>revealing. >> >> >> >>________________________________ From: KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net> >> Reply-To: <digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com> >> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:03:06 -0500 >> To: <digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com> >> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Jose, >> >>I am only trying to suggest whatever ideas I can to get ROS declared to be >>legal. You have made such a strong case for FHSS already, that only "saying" >>you were mistaken probably will not convince the FCC. They will assume you >>are only changing the description so ROS appears to be legal and will demand >>proof that it is not FHSS to change their minds. This is only my personal, >>unbiased, opinion, as I would like very much for you to succeed. >> >>Essentially, you must PROVE that, spreading is NOT accomplished by means of a >>spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the >>data. How do you do that without disclosing the code? At this point, I doubt >>that the FCC will believe mere words, because there is so much pressure to >>allow ROS in HF in this country. >> >>Keep in mind the mess that Toyota finds itself by previously denying there is >>any substantial problem with unattended acceleration or braking of their >>cars. That may still prove to be true (i.e. not "substantial" ), but the >>government here is now demanding that Toyota SHOW proof that there is no >>problem, and not merely saying there is not. This is currently a very hot >>topic with the government and Congress and on the minds of everyone. So I >>assume likewise that PROOF will have to be SHOWN that there is no spreading >>signal used in ROS. Mere words will probably not be enough, and there is >>probably only ONE chance to succeed, so you need to be successful the first >>time. If you decide to only change the description and nothing further, I >>sincerely hope I am wrong, and I could well be. But, that is your decision, >>not mine. >> >>If you need to protect your invention, then just fully document and witness >>it, or do whatever is necessary in your country and others, and be free to do >>whatever is required to win this battle. >> >>Good luck! >> >>73 - Skip KH6TY >> >> >> >>jose alberto nieto ros wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>Hi, KH6. >>> >>> >>> >>>I only i am going to describe in a technicals article how run the mode. If >>>FCC want the code they will have to buy it me, that is obvious. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>________________________________ De:KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net> >>> Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com >>> Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:31 >>> Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Jose, >>>" >>>You will have to disclose the algorithm that determines the spreading on ROS >>>(independent of the data), or bandwidth expansion, if that is actually used. >>>You will have to convince technical people that will show your new >>>description to our FCC that your original description was wrong and prove it >>>by revealing your code. I think this is the only way to get the FCC opinion >>>reversed. You now have a difficult task before you, but I wish you success, >>>as ROS is a really fun mode. >>> >>> >>>73 - Skip KH6TY >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>jose alberto nieto ros wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Is legal because ROS is a FSK modulation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>________________________________ De:ocypret <[email protected]> <mailto:n5bza@ arrl.net> >>>> Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com >>>> Enviado: mar,23 febrero, 2010 21:26 >>>> Asunto: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________ From: KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net> >Reply-To: <digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com> >Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:53:53 -0500 >To: <digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com> >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` > > > > > > >I am for whatever will succeed, but do not underestimate how difficult it is >to convincingly reverse oneself after first originally being so convincing. > >For myself, even from the beginning, I could not understand how the spreading >was accomplished by a code that everyone else automatically had, but that was >the claim, so I accepted it. Perhaps there is no spreading code independent of >the data, but if so, it must now be proven thus, and not just claimed in what >might be seen as an attempt to have something approved that has already been >disapproved. > >Just because I might possess the necessary technical skills does not mean I >can individually overrule the FCC with my actions. Even opposing technical >experts are called by both parties in a legal argument, and the "judge" to >decide who is correct in this case is the FCC, which has already issued an >opinion, even if it may be wrong if given new information, but just "saying it >is so does not make it so". I believe some concrete proof is required now, and >maybe your spectrum analyzer display can be part of such proof. > >Other's opinions may vary... >73 - Skip KH6TY > > > >W2XJ wrote: >
