Julian
I apologize up front, but I do not believe you monitor the bands
even the CW sections with a sdr ( wide waterfall ) display.
If do did this, your monitor is defective, I am sorry!
Watching 40 meter or 30 m or 20 m from a spot in the Eastern
part of the Netherlands:
http://websdr.ewi.utwente.nl:8901/
it can't look much different on the other side of the North Sea.
Frequency allocations is a matter of the IARU of whoever. Perhaps
these days the European Government over there.
So this argument/anti ROS reason does no carry the day. Is it
up to Mr Ros to assign ROS frequencies as a little Dictator?
NO
But it has Nothing to do with ROS being legal in the US or where ever.
73 Rein W6SZ
-----Original Message-----
>From: g4ilo <[email protected]>
>Sent: Jul 13, 2010 9:35 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
>
>
>
>--- In [email protected], Alan Barrow <ml9...@...> wrote:
>>
>> - Simplistic bandwidth comparisons that do not factor in total
>> throughput. (IE: The effect of processor gain, FEC, etc). I don't think
>> ROS was stellar here, but the idea that a wider mode for X data rate is
>> worse than a narrower mode is flawed. Otherwise we'd all be using RTTY.
>> FEC increases bandwidth for the same data rate, but the trade off
>> surfaces over sustained measurement in real (difficult) HF conditions.
>> Skip's work did show there was not a big win for ROS, so we arrived at
>> the right spot. But many were banning just because it was wider than
>> their favorite mode!
>
>I don't know if that is a dig at one of the arguments I have made in the past,
>but I do believe that 2.25kHz ROS was too wide for our existing HF bands.
>Regardless of the merits or otherwise of a mode, people can't go on inventing
>new modes unless they can also come up with a place for them to be used that
>doesn't squeeze out existing users. Even three channels was patently
>inadequate for the number of users wishing to use ROS with the result that
>most of the contacts made, as evidenced by the spots posted here, were
>anything but weak signal DX as the chances of finding 2.25kHz of 20m
>unoccupied are pretty slim at any time.
>
>Julian, G4ILO
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html
>Chat, Skeds, and "Spots" all in one (resize to suit)
>
>Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
