Just because the "Government" has written it down on paper, does not make it right.. And not to start another argument, but incase you haven't noticed we've lost control of our "Government" and that includes the FCC Garrett / AA0OI
________________________________ From: James Hall <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 10:17:08 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! Apparently it's perfectly fine to break the rules because what the big bad "government" doesn't know won't hurt them. At least according to some people. I wonder if anyone making that flim-flam argument frequents the W6NUT repeater. Wouldn't surprise me in the least. On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM, J. Moen <[email protected]> wrote: > >I agree that traditional SS spread across a very large portion of the band >would >be bad here in the US if a lot of stations were using it at once. ROS, though >we know it's not as good as several other modes, is not that kind of SS. It >has >limited bandwidth, not much different from a number of other modes, and the >ban >against it doesn't make sense. > >So I don't agree with the FCC approach to their regulations, where they ban >how >the intelligence is transmitted rather than the bandwidth the signal >occupies. > > >At the same time, I just can't believe some of my fellow countrymen who think >it's ok to pick and choose which rules you'll follow. If you don't like the >rules against petty theft, do you just steal? > > >The right way is to campaign to get the rules you don't like changed, and >until >you do, follow them. > > Jim - K6JM > >----- Original Message ----- >>From: KH6TY >>To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com >>Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:38 PM >>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! >> >> >>I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread spectrum >>above >>222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!). A single spread spectrum signal on >>HF >>may go unnoticed by most stations, but what happens if 100 (in range) are on >>at >>the same time? The statistical chances that where will be QRM on your >>frequency >>are much higher, the more stations that are on. >> >> >>Our bands have very limited spectrum, and therefore it is up to all of us to >>cooperate in using the least bandwidth that will do the job. Perhaps it has >>been >>forgotten that five years ago, it was the practice for a single wideband >>Pactor-II mailbox to obliterate the entire PSK31 segment of the 20m band, >>displacing as many as 30 PSK31 stations. It was only after much discussion >>that >>the Pactor mailboxes agreed to move elsewhere. However there remains a >>Canadian >>Pactor-III automatic (not listening first) mailbox station just below 14.070 >>that makes that area unusable by anyone else. The FCC regulations in the US >>do >>not allow US Pactor-III mailboxes to operate there, but, without >>consideration >>to others, the Canadian Pactor-III station (just across the border) just >>dominates that frequency at will when it could just as well operate in the >>automatic subbands with all the other Pactor-III mailboxes. This is a good >>example of "not getting along" with your neighbors! >> >>The FCC rules may seem unfair, and I am sure SOME are unfair, but there is a >>process of amendment that insures fair access by all parties, as best can be >>done. So, if you do not agree with the FCC rules (that PROTECT as well as >>hinder), take the step of filing a petition to amend the rules and make your >>case, but do not disregard the current rules because you think they are >>unfair, >>because others may not think the same, and they may be harmed by your >>breaking >>the rules. >> >>We all have to try to get along, and the best way to do that is to observe >>the >>local regulations, which have been made for the benefit of the many and not >>just >>for the benefit of the select few. >> >>If the regulations really deserve to be changed, make your case and let the >>process of public comment by ALL concerned parties determine what should be >>done. The FCC makes regulations only for the public benefit, and only after >>giving everyone a chance to comment. >> >>73, Skip KH6TY >>
