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, FBBBBS 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 [email protected], 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: [email protected] > 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=88&Itemid= 95 <http://aresracesofv a.org/index. php?option= > >com_content&view=article&id=88&Itemid=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 -0000 > To: <digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com> > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response > >  >  >  >    > >  >
