Dave, You make good points, and you've already hugely contributed and continue to contribute to Ham Radio, so I don't mean to question you. But if the FCC agent does not consider us Hams a bunch of squabbling children, I guess we are lucky. We sure look that way to me. I am deeply disappointed about this ROS affair. The major parties in the conflict did not conduct themselves well.
As a citizen of the US, it is embarassing the FCC rules don't take bandwidth into account when defining what modes are legal on what bands, and they don't, as you point out, technically define spread spectrum. This probably does not look good to most of the rest of the ham radio world. But given the FCC's statement about each amateur radio operator being responsbile for determining what a mode is and where, therefore, it can be legally operated, I suspect the ham community in the US would have been better off letting each amateur make that determination. I don't think it was wise to immediately contact FCC and ask them, given the givens. This is usually true in every general situation like this, until all the facts can be gathered. At the same time, we have to admit that the author or ROS, similar to FCC's lack of clarity in their rules, has not technically defined ROS very well so far. I hope that changes. Overall, these past weeks have not been amateur radio's finest hours. Jim - K6JM > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for > ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) > From: "Dave AA6YQ" <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, March 04, 2010 10:25 am > To: <[email protected]> > > > I disagree. We are required to determine whether a mode is legal before > using it. The author initially described ROS as being spread spectrum. Part > 97 precludes the use of spread spectrum on HF, but gives no clear definition > of spread spectrum. The FCC bears responsibility for this lack of clarity, > and so cannot blame amateurs who seek their help in determining whether ROS > is legal on HF. They do work for us, after all. > > In my conversation with Dawn (FCC agent 3820), there was not a whiff of "why > are you guys annoying us with this nonsense?". She wasn't happy about having > her words publicly twisted into "ROS is legal on HF", though. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]on > Behalf Of J. Moen > Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 1:04 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS > (K3UK Sked Pages) > > > > > "And think real hard next time before calling the FCC. Ham radio was the > net loser in this episode. We are already viewed as squabbling children > at the FCC, and this type of episode just reinforces that view of > amateur radio." > > AMEN. > > Jim - K6JM > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Alan Barrow > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 8:06 AM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS > (K3UK Sked Pages) > > > > pd4u_dares wrote: > > ... considering legal action ... has an apparent plan ... may have > understandably frustrated Jose > > > > I really have mixed feelings about how this all played out as well. > While I don't agree with ban lists, I can see where the software author > could get very frustrated at what could be perceived as an attempt to > get a new mode banned. > > My observation is that when an "arms length" ham goes to the ARRL/FCC > with an "is this legal" it nearly always results in a "at first glance > we do not think so". Historically, this is nearly always done by people > opposed to the new mode, and looking to see it banned. > > Having seen this happen more than once, and having detailed information > on two of those cases, it's the wrong way to handle such a query, even > if done in good faith. > > And like most times this occurs, with more detail, and maybe a bit more > objective presentation (like making it clear it's ssb bandwidth with an > audio sample), the FCC Input is reversed. (it was never a decision, just > an opinion based on the facts at hand) > > In this particular case it's made much worse by the sparse, poor wording > in the fcc regs. > > The issue was not that ROS technically used SS type techniques. Or even > could clearly be called SS using the ITU definition. > > Instead, the core issue was: "did ROS behave like traditional SS in a > way that would cause interference and thus was banned under 220 mhz. " > And the answer to that is clearly no. It behaves like many other > AFSK'ish modes that use an SSB bandwidth. Other legal modes use > randomization in a way that by very strict interpretation could be > called SS. Had it hopped across 100khz, using vco rf stages, it'd > clearly be illegal. > > Personally, I think it's unfair to compare to the other authors, as they > have never had such a (real or perceived) attack on their software, the > product of many hours of work. And we had cross language/culture issues > at play here as well. This was not an "I don't like it", or "it does not > work well", all authors have to deal with that. It was a "we don't think > it should be used" debate. And much more personal and at risk. > > So my view is that we should all learn from this, put the swords back in > the scabbards, and not alienate someone who took the time to create > something innovative, and made it available for use. For free. > > And think real net loser hard next time before calling the FCC. Ham radio > was the > in this episode. We are already viewed as squabbling children > at the FCC, and this type of episode just reinforces that view of > amateur radio. > > Sincerely, > > Alan > km4ba
