Interesting ... The text of the "FCC: ROS LEGAL IN USA" assertion seems to be missing from that site now.
--- In [email protected], "Dave AA6YQ" <aa...@...> wrote: > > Earlier this morning, I called the FCC to confirm the "FCC: ROS LEGAL IN > USA" assertion made in > > <http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/> > > I asked for confirmation that the FCC had deemed ROS legal for use on HF by > US amateurs. When asked for a case number, I provided the case number given > on the above web page -- but was informed that this case number refers to a > "password reset" request, not ROS. I asked if I could speak with agent 3820, > and was immediately connected; her name is Dawn. I gave Dawn the above URL, > and read her the salient paragraph. She said that the information about ROS > legality posted on the above web site was not accurate. Dawn went on to say > that FCC staff members were working on this issue, and asked me to not make > public comments until further progress had been made. She offered to call me > at that time. > > Dawn called me a few minutes ago, and stated that FCC staff consider the > information on the above web page to be out of context and misleading. She > further stated that FCC staff is working with the ARRL on this issue, and > that the outcome will be publicized by the ARRL. Dawn expects this to happen > soon; there is nothing related to ROS posted on <http://www.arrl.org/> as of > a few minutes ago. > > Note that all telephone conversations with FCC personnel are recorded. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ >
