For the record, I have no problem with the ROS mode whatsoever. Soon after
its announcement, I emailed the developer offering interoperation with
DXLab -- an offer that stands.
Developing a great new mode or application does not entitle one to threaten,
belittle, or mock those who respond with scathing criticism, much less those
who simply ask questions. I strongly disagree with attempts to position
legitimate concerns about ROS legality on the part of US amateurs as
evidence of a bias against innovation in amateur radio. In response to such
a claim on the ROS reflector yesterday, I posted the message below.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
From: rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com
On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 4:08 PM
To: rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com Subject:
RE: [ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP] Experimentation and Amateur Radio
1. The author publicly described ROS as spread spectrum
2. Hams in the US are required to determine whether a mode is legal in the
US before using it
3. In the US, spread spectrum is not legal on HF bands
#1 was an egregious technical error. A engineer making a mistake of this
magnitude should exhibit contrition and patience, not belligerance and
outrage. Threatening legal action against a ham attempting in good faith to
fulfil obligation #2 was far outside the spirit of amateur radio -- and from
a legal perspective, ridiculous. Framing the amateur community's reaction as
"anti-innovation" is disingenuous; we've seen many new digital modes from
all quarters over the years, and none produced anything close to this
situation.
Had the author correctly described ROS from the outset, or had he
forthrightly corrected his error without lashing out at everyone who sought
to understand what technology ROS actually employs so they could confidently
use this attractive new mode, this teapot tempest would never have occurred.
You reap what you sow.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
