Narrowband version of ROS still not legal below 222MHz without FCC approval

Sodomy is against the law, but...

You can go on endlessly with these silly arguments.

 

The author said, in his poor-excuse-for-documentation, that it was a spread spectrum mode. Seeing as how that's one of the few explicitly against-the-rules modes on amateur radio (depending on freq), someone sent the info and an audio sample to the FCC.

The FCC came out and said it was indeed spread spectrum, and illegal for use below 222.

Then the author of the mode fabricated an email. It was designed to look like it was from the FCC, reversing their original statement. It was intended to make US amateurs believe that the FCC had 'blessed' ROS for use by US hams.

But the whole thing backfired. The ARRL asked the FCC for clarification, the FCC said that the 2nd email (published by Ros) was a fraud, and now here we are...

As of today, the mode known as ROS is still illegal for use below 222MHz... and should be considered so unless and until the FCC comes out with another decision on the matter.

 

Good Luck....

As was mentioned earlier, all that is needed is for someone to help the non-English speaking author describe the mode properly and convey that to the FCC staff (on the condition that whoever that staff person is that takes the communication is sufficiently competent to understand the difference.)

If the FCC did a better job at enforcement, we wouldn't have some of the assaults on our spectrum that are going on. Spread spectrum, give me a break. Heddy Lamar would roll over in her grave.

Again, it sounds like ARRL is not interested in what sounds like another decent narrow bandwidth digital mode. Faster and narrower are good attributes. Not good attributes include those that suddenly increase bandwidth automatically without checking use of the additional spectrum first.

 

He's already (apparently) fabricated an email from the FCC. Hard to turn back from that. The aggressive position he's taken with anyone who questions him also seems to be a giant turn-off.

And as for the mode, there are many variants... but I think one is a 2.2KHz wide, 1 baud mode. Hardly "narrow". I think now there's a 500Hz variant, but still a ton wider than PSK31.

 

Hmm, that should have been modulation designator 2K25J2D.

Anyway, he needs to come up with something like that.

(FCC 47 CFR 2.201)

 

Mr. Ros

Looks like he is in fact a college employee and/or student...

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

Thanks to N1SZ for hunting it down!

 

Now it makes perfect sense. It's a kid having a internet tantrum. The biggest issue I have is that he fabricated an email from an official government office in the U.S.

You know, all the protocol supported in my ROC program and in the TNCs are either documented with the FCC and/or have open source. The MT63 soundcard DLL we have comes with full source and all the other protocols (CW, RTTY, FEC, AMTOR, PSK-31 PACTOR 1 and GTOR) have full public documentation (as does MT-63).

 

and from his blog

http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/arrl-are-using-a-illegal-mode/#comments

José Alberto Nieto Ros Says:

8 March, 2010 at 20:26

"..the problems of American Ham Radio with ROS are not my problems."

FB, 73, you just succeded in telling the U.S. hams (who are the 'customers') that it's not your problem and you could care less what we think.

Please take a course in netiquette. This may help you communicate better with others online.

http://www.albion.com/netiquette/

 

So technically it is now a logic bomb. Perhaps someone should tell Norton and McAfee.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

 

ROS - It's a disease

In my best Sally Struthers voice....

ROS...it's a disease...and we need your help. Please send all of your money, or just your email accounts and passwords. With only one email account a day, I can feed my family for a week by sending spam from your compromised accounts. Won't you help now? One email account is all it takes.

On a (very) slightly less serious note, if he doesn't care about the American hams, why go through the trouble of blocking certain American hams from using it??

Now, how do I get on that list and what did N1SZ do to warrant double secret probation?

Dave
K3DCW

 

At least I asked....

Logic bomb? I think the answer is clearly "yes".

Why is Mr. Ros so upset about the legal situation for US amateurs?
We don't know. Again I can only guess that the lack of a large Beta Test base for his college software project is a possible answer. I did ask him the "tough" questions today by posting to his ROS blog page, but being a fully moderated page my questions never made it past his review. His lack of a reply tells me what I wanted to know.

For completeness, here is what I sent him:

***************************
Jose-

When you first released your ROS software, you used the title:
“INTRODUCTION TO ROS: THE SPREAD SPECTRUM”

So what is ROS? At first you call it Spread Spectrum (SS), then the ARRL (with comments from the FCC) reminds US amateurs that any form of SS is not allowed for use below 222MHz in the US. After that is pointed out to you, you change the article and say that it never happened. Why is that?

Are you even a ham radio operator?

Why is it your concern if US hams cannot use your software?
***************************

 

Double secret probation...... Nice. I like it. Bluto from Animal House would be proud!

Keep trying Dave...maybe some day you can have your callsign coded into the software "Hall of Shame".

Jim

 

I "should" be in there !!! did he take me off it? im upset now

 

You made the list in version 2.7.0:

K5OKC,N1SZ,G4ILO,W4PC,
W9IQ,KY5U,KQ6XA,G0GQK,
N3RQ,N1SZ,KCARAN,GW7AAV,
WA1ZMS,K3DCW

 

That is a truly scary suggestion. I just examined the raw text of an email sent using this program (before I was banned.) It contains what appears to be a user-inserted header called "thread-index". (Why do I think it is user-inserted? Because the name is in lower case, while all the other header names are capitalized,) This header contains a Base64 encoded string which is constant in messages sent to different people. When decoded it produces garbage, but for all I know it could be an encrypted copy of my password that has been Base64 encoded because the encryption could contain invalid characters.

It probably isn't, but all the same I have just changed my Gmail password.