ROS and CHIP deemed illegal below 222 mHz for U.S. amateurs

I just sent the following email to the FCC:

Dear FCC Man;

On qrz.com there are lots of emails flying around from you guys. What's the deal? Do each and every one of you guys have your head located inside of your fourth point of contact?

And what's the deal with "Agent Numbers"? Secret Agent Man, much? Give you a number and take away your name?

It's getting silly over there. Documentation, technical opinions, etc. Can you just add some light to the situation?

KC2UGV


And this was the response:

While we can not comment on the intelligence level of the posters on QRZ and their technical skills with radios, we can comment on the technical ability of "Copy Paste". It would appear that none of the emails/letters were copy/pasted. We asked Bill Gates about that. He said copy/paste functions were disabled within emails on Windows 95 and Windows 7 (Intermediate operating systems have the function enabled).

We can also comment on the humor angle of the things. A bunch of OM arguing about something that they can look at themselves, should they take the time. We at the FCC think it's f'n hilarious (Don't copy/paste that part please. We're not supposed to swear in emails). We also laugh at each of, what we refer to as "nanny requests" when someone's favorite mode is being challenged in someway, suddenly, a bunch of emails and letters come in, and we sit around the office and laugh a lot at their expense.

About the agent numbers, that's a little inside joke. When we want to add some fuel to the proverbial fire, we just give an agent number. Adds a little bit of "cloak and dagger" element, which always ups the argument factor. We get a kick out of that too. Really.

As for the documentation and what not, we don't really read anything sent to us. All we really care about is that nobody interferes with any of the licensed spectrum. We figured ham's could take care of themselves, but we are seriously considering giving up the "Grown Up Rule". This is the rule in which we assume hams are grown ups, and can work out their issues with each other. We think we might move towards channelizing the ham spectrum (All of it). Would make things a lot easier to deal with. Seems knobs are a little difficult for people to use, so, we figured an up-down button would just simplify things.

If you convey any of this to QRZ people, let me know what their replies are. Might make for some good laughs at the FCC office's water cooler.

Should you have any further questions, or need additional information, please contact the ULS Customer Support Hotline at (877) 480-3201 (877) 480-3201, selecting option 2.

Sincerely,
Agent 999999999111111111111000000000123456789

 

It's sad that the US ham-verse considers throwing up a protocol on a personal website the same as "publication," a term which usually encapsulates research, scientific method, and peer-review. Shouldn't we see some independent confirmation of the newest claim regarding ROS' legality?
And what's all this about Mr. Ros threatening a US ham with legal action? No court has jurisdiction over ham communications with the FCC!
Congress authorized the FCC to regulate the US radio spectrum because we believe it's a vital, scarce and precious resource. It's nice that some foreign hams feel they operate in some radio experimentation frontier, but they should also be responsible to the international consequences that arise when transmitting on crowded HF. Why would a station create specific channels without first doing research as to which other services might be impacted? Responsible engineering is not about following rules, it's about building beneficial structures designed to last.
\soapbox

 

Sheesh! If the "agent" letter and the threat of legal action is legit it makes the guy sound like he has invented PACTOR-3 or D-Star.

The developer of a new mode has a responsibility to fully document it's features and characteristics. Once someone "puts it out there" for usage then they have no right to gripe if someone calls into question their incorrect usage of terminology.

The FCC appears to have reacted in knee-jerk fashion to the Spread Spectrum buzz-words. I cannot really fault them, they have a limited technical staff to directly evaluate every new mode or technology that shows up at their door.

IMO, if the new "mode" operates within the bandwidth constraints of an SSB signal and does not deliberately obscure the data through encryption or a proprietary protocol it should not be a problem.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

He also threatened me, this afternoon that he would make it illegal for me to use hos new mode, simply for reporting on my blog a week ago that the FCC had said the mode was illegal.

To keep things straight, he did immediately apologize after I pointed out that I had reported the FCC's change of mind several hours before he issued his ultimatum. But you might have thought that he would double-check his facts before issuing me with a public threat, and you might also think that a friendly email might have been a more appropriate response than a stern ultimatum in a public forum that I might not even read.

This whole episode has left me feeling very sour. I now believe that what we need is stricter regulation of what digital modes are allowed to be used by the general ham population. The situation where any Tom, Dick or Jose can invent a new mode and unleash chaos on the bands as every new ham downloads the software and goes mad with the new "toy" is of no benefit to anyone. I thought ROS was supposed to be a weak signal mode, but the amount of contention for a handful of frequencies and the number of people using it to make single-hop macro-exchange QSOs they could easily have used PSK31 for made any hope of seeing what the mode could do impossible.

 

I noticed that Mr. Ros has listed the callsigns belonging to Mr. SAMPSON, Mr. BERNSTEIN, Mr. TOYNTON, and Mr. BAS on his blog as being not authorized to use his protocol. Can an amateur really put a lid on other amateur's use of amateur digital codes?
What is a 'lid' anyways....

 

Well I'm ...

M6RDP and PE4BAS are regular readers of my blog and have commented on my some of my posts about ROS. I don't think M6RDP has even used the software. So I guess they are only there because they commented on my blog. I'm surprised I'm not on the list yet, but I have already said I have no further intention of using it.

C'mon folks, add your comments. Why should they get all the notoriety?

 

I can only assume he got my callsign off of QRZ threads discussing the mode.

Alas, He didn't read the part where I mentioned I had no interest in running the software. There's no way I'm running VB6, OCX, and ancient DLL's on my ham computer. Not to mention it sending emails from his software.

I have many interests, but not much time, so I have to pick the stuff that gives me the most enjoyment (making CD's of Chanton Mireille Mathieu for my commute, ha). Sending 2.5 kHz wide signals below 10 metres isn't one of them.

Mireille Mathieu

Besides, I have no clue (unlike Agent 3820) what his "technical" description means. It's all poo-poo to me.

 

ARRL says the FCC did not retract statement.

The ARRL, on its web site, has said the FCC did not author the text that was on the ROS web site (included in an earlier posting in this thread).

Left unstated, is whether the FCC is lying, or whether the document was a forgery.

In my eye's the document looked about as authentic as the first document which was attributed as being from the FCC.

It gets deeper...

I guess the ARRL needs to research whether Case ID HD0000001311853 and Case ID HD0000001311878 exists or not.

ARRL Web Posting concerning forged FCC document

 

Hams, Laws, and Drama. Gotta love it.

OPCORN:

 

Somebody did. It doesn't. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/35124

 

Sadly, I don't even think the Ros guy is a ham. He's been determined to be a fabricator of untruth, and it is drama when someone shoots themselves in the foot.

 

ROS

For US Amateurs....my take on the situation: ROS = Run Other Software!

Hoping to make the banned list......

 

College student...maybe?

http://www.thesauro.com/nietoros/