Jefferson did make that quote. Grace Hopper did: http://thinkexist.com/quotation/it-is-often-easier-to-ask-for-forgiveness-than-to/378343.html
The ARRL only quoted the FCC who quoted Jose. Does not seem like anyone in authority opined on ROS software. The FCC cares about what comes out of my radio. Yours too. Doesn't care how it got in the radio. SS is defined in 97.1. Emission types and useage are from about 97.300 to 97.311. The easiest way to get to the Code of Federal Regulations is thru the FAA website. Until somebody can demonstrate to the FCC that it's not SS, it is and restricted as such. Won't be me. Brent, KE4MZ (after long absence, I hope to appear in a few logs again.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rein A" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 5:10:04 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? Greg is using ROS. I have logged him. Of course he is living in the North West far away from the government. And Graig, I did not suggest an nice older person to go and ask. That were others who wanted it to die. 73 Rein W6sz --- In [email protected], <k...@...> wrote: > > Hear, hear > > rgrds > Craig > kq6i > > -----Original Message----- > From: AA0OI [mailto:aa...@...] > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:52 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? > > > > HI: > I Just have one question... HOW THE HELL OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE ?!! Grow Up, and > let it die..You have all stabbed it > enought to kill it 20 times over.. > The only problem with this mode is that you all have to run and ask Uncle FCC > "what do we do , what do we do ?" > If everyone would just shut the hell up and use the mode and not whine like a > 12 year old girl, the FCC would not even > know that it existed or EVEN CARE !! > Ham Radio is AMATEUR RADIO--- NOT PROFESSIONAL...Some of its use is for > EXPERIMENTATION (if not we'd all be using > spark-gap radios today !!! > So THANKS for screwing ROS up for the rest of us that don't need Big Brothers > permission to pee in the night.. > And next time a new mode comes out... PLEASE just stay the hell away from it > and go do something like PSK31or something > else that you already have Permission to use from Uncle Government !! > "Its better to ask forgiveness,, because you'll never get permission" and > American : Thomas Jefferson > > > Garrett / AA0OI <http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/47.gif> > > > ________________________________ > > From: "rein...@..." <rein...@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 2:52:47 PM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? > > > > > Skip, > > I have a lot of respect for you and appreciated every time you emailed me. > Honest. > > Went yesterday through all messages on ROSMODEM and got the idea of some anti > biases built in here and there. Almost > from day in. > > You have numerous messages about US ROS use and I sense it. Sure I have a > bias the other way, difference though, ROS is > not my program. > Even more interesting as far as Jose goes I might be his biggest enemy in the > universe. > > 73 Rein W6SZ > > -----Original Message----- > >From: KH6TY <kh...@... <mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net> > > >Sent: Jul 12, 2010 3:04 PM > >To: [email protected] > ><mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> > >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? > > > >No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with > >the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, > >which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would > >accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the > >FCC is not that gullible! > > > >The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a > >petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do. > > > >This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested > >in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of > >a false FCC approval. > > > >I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply > >any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit > >orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front > >of this computer. > > > >I hope you understand... > > > >73, Skip KH6TY SK > > > >On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote: > >> > >> That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask > >> evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be > >> allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available. > >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836 > >> > >> Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by > >> some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern > >> technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt > >> digital noise reduction to hf/vhf data modes will stall > >> > >> I note interest in adding the mode to existing software was expressed > >> at a early point in the proceedings ,those asking could see the > >> advantage first hand . (may of been a Homer S DH moment) it looks > >> however now, if this is perhaps not feasible , there is a DDS > >> interface port , but this only connects the MF mode and is in use in > >> France on 137k ,BW issues? MF takes 98 Hz > >> > >> I think Andy is right , some one needs to address the log jam your > >> side of the pond , this not a issue of a local by law , its a cap on > >> technical development , even stone tablets can be recycled these days... > >> > >> G .. > >> > >> --- In [email protected] > >> <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> > >> <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, KH6TY <kh6ty@> wrote: > >> > > >> > Andy, > >> > > >> > I have been told by a FCC engineer, part of the evaluation group at > >> > the FCC, whom I will not name, that ROS 16 baud and 1 baud has been > >> > evaluated in the lab and "is" spread-spectrum and therefore illegal > >> > on HF, not only because the author first said it was spread > >> > spectrum and then changed his story. > >> > > >> > Anyone with DigiPan or any other PSK31 program with a waterfall can > >> > verify that the frequency spreading is random and not a function of > >> > the data, which is the signature of spread-spectrum. > >> > > >> > Just because someone "feels" it is not spread spectrum does not > >> > excuse them from following the regulations and those who do not > >> > risk the > >> chance > >> > of FCC action against them once someone files a complaint. > >> > > >> > There is no reason for the FCC to "reconsider" their decision, > >> > since it is based on analysis as well as the author's declaration. > >> > What can be done is to submit a petition to the FCC to allow > >> > limited bandwidth spread spectrum on HF by showing it is not > >> > harmful to other users of > >> the > >> > bands. The instructions for submitting a petition are available on > >> > the FCC website. > >> > > >> > Radio amateurs are responsible for following the regulations, not > >> > just interpreting them as they see fit. > >> > > >> > ROS is legal above 222 Mhz, so freely use it there if you wish. It > >> > is probably really good for EME. > >> > > >> > 73, Skip KH6TY > >> > > >> > On 7/12/2010 6:55 AM, Andy obrien wrote: > >> > > > >> > > For those USA hams that are using ROS on HF, I assume that by > >> > > using it...they feel it is not spread spectrum and thus should be > >> > > legal. Is there any movement towards petitioning the FCC to > >> > > reconsider the unofficial comments by them and obtaining > >> > > statements that it is legal ? Or has everyone agreed it IS spread > >> > > spectrum and given up on it becoming legal in the USA ? > >> > > Andy K3UK > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > ------------------------------------ http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and "Spots" all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
