Hi W2XJ,
Could you tell me please ( I am believe to be the only person in the group
of 4000 seriously interested in this subject as a potential user )
the exact definition of SS in this connection.
Open domain references available to me as a non menber of IEEE and
the rest.
frequency hopping
published protocol in public domain
being available to FCC or NSA et al to read transmissions.
What all else goes into this.
It is called by FCC illegal but they do not provide tthe test criteria
for me to make that descision.
I think I can do:
from SS is: -1-, -2-,-3-
ask is Ros -1- or not?
is Ros -2- ,,
etc.
"It has the same or slightly smaller than SSB" does not do it I think
I like to read or be able to search -1- , -2- , and so on from a reliable source
not private, agenda based opinions.
I went yesterday through all emails on the ros modem group and got certain
impressions
from doing this.
I hope you read this and engage, here or in private.
===================================================
Given the statement via ARRL outlet.
What happens if FCC ask me hey....
I tell them well I did the analysis, found this and the other party
tells me sorry sir you are wrong and you violated section this and that?
even I were to ask, why please and they say, we told you it was illegal!
73 Rein W6SZ
-----Original Message-----
>From: W2XJ <w...@w2xj.net>
>Sent: Jul 12, 2010 5:52 PM
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum
>
>Why do you persist in getting the FCC involved? You are potentially
>damaging the hobby as a whole. If one is qualified to hold a license the FCC
>presumes ones ability to determine what operations are legal.
>
>
>On 7/12/10 1:28 PM, "KH6TY" <kh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Lester,
>> The "inventor" has shown over and over that he is not to be trusted, and so
>> his block diagram would not be believed either. I suggested months ago to him
>> to just send his code in confidence to the FCC, which they would keep
>> private,
>> and be done with it. He replied that, arrogantly, "The FCC would have to
>> purchase the code from him". To me, that suggests that he is unwilling to
>> disclose the code because it would prove once and for all that it was spread
>> spectrum, and instead, he tried to bluff his way to approval, even by
>> changing
>> his original description of the code as spread spectrum, which obviously did
>> not work.
>>
>> ROS's best advantage, IMHO, is for EME, and it is legal there for US hams for
>> 432 and 1296 EME. I only wish it were legal on 2M also and I could use it for
>> EME on that band.
>>
>> Yes, it should be open-source, and that would end the discussion, but he has
>> (for perhaps devious or commercial) personal reasons for refusing to do so.
>>
>> That is just not going to happen, so let's end the discussion on that note
>> and
>> get on the air instead!
>>
>> 73, Skip KH6TY
>>
>> On 7/12/2010 1:14 PM, Lester Veenstra wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Skip:
>>>
>>> Spectral analysis cannot differentiate between a high rate FEC
>>> operating
>>> after, as it invariably must, a randomizer, and a true spread spectrum
>>> system. And a spread spectrum system does not need to employ frequency
>>> hopping. And a signal that ³frequency hops² is not necessarily a spread
>>> spectrum signal. I refer you to the old favorite of the UK Diplomatic
>>> service, the Piccolo.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As I advocated in an earlier post, the way to end this endless discussion
>>> would be for the ³inventor² to disclose the block diagram of the various
>>> steps in his encoding/modulation system. In fact I was rash enough to
>>> suggest
>>> that IMHO, all of these systems being played with by hams, should be open
>>> sourced, so that, the end user can have some confidence in what he is using,
>>> and the state of the art can be mutually advanced. We started with this
>>> philosophy with the TTL MAINLINER-II, and continue it today with many of the
>>> DSPR systems out there, including the primary commercial company. Their
>>> disclosure does not seem to have slowed them down at all.
>>>
>>> Thanks 73
>>>
>>> Les
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
