Well said, Skip. I also noticed a few days ago on the ROSDIGITALMODEM group that W4CMM had contacted the FCC asking for a revisit of the ROS issue. They reiterated their stance regarding ROS.
To excerpt the response from the FCC: "FCC position has not changed on ROS equipment." Check out the ROSDIGITALMODEM group or contact W4CMM for more information, but it looks like they're still sticking to the position. As Skip said; if you don't like it, file a petition to change the rule. Otherwise, complaining about it won't change a thing, and running the mode opens yourself up to whatever action the FCC decides to take. Dave K3DCW On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:51 PM, KH6TY <kh...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > Hi Trevor, > > I have already previously stated that a FCC engineer with the FCC group > analyzing ROS told me what was done, and what was concluded, and I wa asked > not to divulge his name. Whether or not there was a report issued, I do not > know. > > I don't know of any US amateurs raising any petition to move to regulation > by bandwidth instead of by mode. This has already been denied by the FCC > once, so I doubt if it will be revisited soon, but nothing prevents anyone > from entering their own petition. However, it will not be me, because I > understand why spread spectrum of any kind on HF would not be good for the > ham community in the US in general, and that "regulation by bandwidth" had > its own serious problems. > > Remember that the US ham population is very large, and what we are allowed > to do here can affect many hams worldwide, due to the worldwide nature of > propagation. You need to count your blessings that the FCC regulations keep > automatic mailboxes confined to the FCC-designated subbands for unattended > stations (when other countries do not), because without those, a hoard of US > amateurs could flood the bands with mailboxes, interfering with DX and > ragchew QSO's all over the world. You have to be careful what you wish for! > Hi! > > As you say, we have been around this loop before, and, especially since > Tony's tests show no weak signal advantage to the ROS wide spread spectrum > variants over the narrowband variants, I think it is time to stop beating > this horse to death and move on to something more constructive. > > I think that Andy previously set a cutoff date for ROS discussions on this > reflector, and it is probably time for him to do that again, since arguments > are getting to be circular and sometimes degenerate into personal attacks or > insults. > > The ROSmodem Yahoo group is always available for continued discussions for > users of the mode and has not been killed as was threatened. > > I always try to answer comments or criticisms directed to me, but I really > have a lot to do to keep up with kit orders for my interface in the July QST > and cannot keep on answering emails about ROS over and over. > > I have said all I can say, so I want to leave this discussion right now! > > I hope you understand... > > Thanks! > > 73, Skip KH6TY > -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
