This thread now appears to confirm what Jose and a few others have claimed .That ROS has some characteristics of Spread Spectrum and frequency hopping, but does not meet the definition that the FCC has implied when not allowing Spread Spectrum in the USA. The hams involved in this thread (Skip, Rein, and Steinar) , are well known for their technical knowledge. So, although some hams may wish to wait for more definitive opinions from the ARRL and/or FCC, this might be used as reasonable evidence that use on the appropriate parts of the HF is "OK" for the USA .
Thanks to the hams that did some good technical investigation, and thanks to Jose for his substantial contribution to ham radio. Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY <kh...@...> wrote: > > Looks like good news Steinar! If the data changes the frequencies, it > does not qualify as FHSS as Jose originally claimed. I am sure the FCC > will find the same during their tests and expect them to say it can be > used on HF and VHF. I am especially interested in being able to use the > 1 baud mode for EME on 2m and right now, FHSS is not permitted below 222 > MHz. However, we will have to wait for the FCC to issue a new opinion, > since they already issued one based on Jose's original claims. > > 73 - Skip KH6TY > > > > > Steinar Aanesland wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Skip > > > > Here is the new ROS signal. It is idling with two gruops of 25 sec of > > X's . As you can see the pattern change when sending data. > > > > http://home.broadpark.no/~saanes/bilder/ROS_X_2.JPG > > <http://home.broadpark.no/%7Esaanes/bilder/ROS_X_2.JPG> > > > > 73 de LA5VNA Steinar > > > > On 27.02.2010 13:19, KH6TY wrote: > > > That's a good analysis, Steinar. Is it possible to see if the pattern > > > changes when sending data? That is all the FCC is concerned about. The > > > pattern has to change when sending data and not just remain the same > > > to exclude it from being FHSS. > > > > > > 73 - Skip KH6TY > > > > > > > >
