--- On Fri, 26/2/10, DaveNF2G <[email protected]> wrote: > File a federal lawsuit stating that the FCC's > "determination" that ROS is SS and therefore unlawful on HF > bands in the USA is arbitrary and capricious, based on the
My interpretation from over on this side of the Atlantic is that the FCC DID NOT say ROS was unlawful on HF. In fact in the response at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/34812 they specifically do not state the Commissions View on ROS saying: "The Commission does not determine if a particular mode "truly" represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules." The sentence: "ROS" is viewed as "spread spectrum," and the creator of the system describes it as that. Is NOT giving the Commissions determination of the mode. They are simply noting what is said in the original "Request for clarification", which was basically some that Radio Amateurs view it as SS, hence the debate, and the author of the mode did indeed describe it as such. The FCC simply say it is up to the Operator to make a decision as to whether a mode is in breach of regulations. It is worth remembering that US Amateurs have been using CHIP64 on HF for 5 years, a long time. It is a Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum mode and described as such on the ARRL website. I am not aware of the FCC having had a problem with Amateur usage of that mode on HF. Out of curiosity what is the initial response of the FCC if an Amateur where to breach one of the regs ? Is it to sent them a letter informing them of the breach and asking them to desist ? Long term the solution looks like reform of the license regs but that may be easier said than done. It's over 32 years since the FCC itself first proposed band planning by bandwidth (their plan was for 350 Hz, 3.5 kHz, 7.5 kHz etc bandwidth segments) and 5 years since the ARRL submitted a similar proposal. Perhaps a 3rd attempt at changing introducing bandwidth planning will be successful ? I hope so. 73 Trevor M5AKA
