Re: [digitalradio] Curious sound card modes question -
From: John ke5h...@taylorent.com Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 Time: 23:04:49 So as to not continue growing the ROS legality discussion even further, I would like to ask a fairly simple question. How will the modulation be determined from any SSB transmitter when the source of the modulation is via the microphone audio input of that transmitter? Simply stated, how would any digital mode create anything other than some form of FSK simply by inputting a tone at the microphone input? Regardless of the software being used to generate the tone(s), at any given time there is nothing more than the absence or presence of a tone at the audio input of the transmitter. [Snip] With this discussion, how do we arbitrarily change the transmitter output definitions? I am truly asking because that is a concept beyond my feeble mind. I really do not know. To me, regardless of the source of the modulation itself, the modulation still remains an offset of the carrier frequency by the frequency of the input tone. [More snip] The emission designations were devised a long, long time ago when life was simple, and are now enshrined in ITU recommendations. Unfortunately they are not really *emission* designations, describing just the characteristics of the *emitted* signal -- the designations also specify the *method* of generating the emitted signals and the *content* as well. This leads to the utterly ridiculous designations that you see in: http://life.itu.ch/radioclub/rr/ap01.htm Do you realize, for example, that when you are sending Morse code, the emission designator is now 100HA1AAN, and when you are talking on SSB the designation is 2K70J3EJN? (Incidentally, there is no mention of spread spectrum on that page). This is just codifying for the sake of codifying, and I do not believe the fine distinctions between method and content have any practical use. As technology continues to outstrip the legislators, the situation will only get worse. Bottom line is that to get things changed to something more meaningful and useful, you have to convince the ITU. This will not happen any time soon, so we are stuck for now with the useless designator mud pie. John, your mind is not feeble. You are applying common sense in a very non-common-sense world. -- 73 Ian, G3NRW
[digitalradio] Re: PSK SPOTS in DXLAB
Thanks Dave, Although I use Winwarbler and Spot Collector a lot, I have never really tried clicking on PSK31 spots . I will have to give that a try. Very useful. I wonder if this is the only application that does work well with PSK31 spots? Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ aa...@... wrote: AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Andy obrien Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 9:56 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] PSK SPOTS In WinWarbler, one click in the waterfall selects a PSK signal, and one click of the Spot button generates an outgoing spot (via SpotCollector). Double-clicking a PSK Spot Database Entry in SpotCollector directs WinWarbler or MultiPSK to immediately begin decoding the spotted station, QSYing the transceiver as required to achieve the specified optimal offset. Alternatively, one can click a plotted DX spot on DXView's World Map or click a DX spot on Commander's bandspread to accomplish the same result. WinWarbler's broadband decoder continuously identifies active PSK QSOs within the receiver bandpass, listing the decoded callsigns in its Stations Heard window. Optionally, these callsigns can be inserted into SpotCollector's Spot Database, where they are color coded for need with respect to the user's award objectives and award progress, dynamically obtained from DXKeeper. Thus its straightforward to identify needed PSK DX. These capabilities have been in broad use by DXLab users for many years. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
You must configure your receiver so that no filters are used (other than standard SBB ) . ROS filters the signal better than the transceiver. Please: DONT APPLY FILTERS TO YOUR TRANSCEIVERS. Jose Alberto Nieto Ros (edit by K3UK) De: Ugo ugo.dep...@me.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com CC: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mar,23 febrero, 2010 07:40 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? Hi All. Just a question, and please, be patient if I'm asking this... I'm a SWL and I decoded ros in last days, but HOW MUCH is large its bandwidth ? In other words, which is the minimun value of bandwidth enough to receive/decode ros ? Best regards and thanks in advance for any reply. 73 de Ugo - SWL 1281/VE (sent with iPhone) Il giorno 22/feb/2010, alle ore 22.33, KH6TY kh...@comcast. net ha scritto: Hi Jose, Of course we start that way (using a SSB filter), but then a Pactor station will come on, cover the upper fourth of the ROS signal, and decoding becomes garbage until it leaves. With a more narrow mode, the Pactor station can just be filtered out at IF frequencies and not affect either the AGC or the decoding of something like MFSK16 or Olivia 16-500, as long as those signals are sufficiently away from the Pactor signal (even if they are still within the bandwidth of a ROS signal). In the case of CW stations, during the contest, they just appeared in the SSB filter bandwidth, and therefore among the ROS tones, and some of those also stopped decoding until they left. Let's say a MT63-500 signal appears at 2000 Hz tone frequency (i.e. covering from 2000 to 2500 Hz) at the same signal strength as the ROS signal. Will ROS stop decoding? If a MT-63-1000 signal appears at 1500 Hz tone frequency, will ROS stop decoding? If this happens and there is a more narrowband signal like MFSK16, for instance, covering from 500 Hz to 1000 Hz, the MFSK16 signal can coexist with the MT63 signal unless the MT63 signal has captured the AGC and cutting the gain. If it has, then passband tuning can cut out the MT63 signal, leaving only the MFSK16 signal undisturbed and decoding. In other words, there is less chance for an interfering signal to partially or completely cover a more narrow signal that there is a much wider one, unless the wider one can still decode with half or 25% of its tones covered up. The question posed is how well ROS can handle QRM, and that is what I tried to see. If ROS can withstand half of its bandwidth covered with an interfering signal and still decode properly then I cannot explain what I saw, but decoding definitely stopped or changed to garbage when the Pactor signal came on. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Hi, You must not filter anything in the transceiver. You must pass all bandwith in your receiver because filter are doing by the PC better than you transceiver. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: lun,22 febrero, 2010 18:31 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? Howard, After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the following: 1. CW signals (of narrow width, of course) during this past weekend contest often disrupted decoding, and it looks like it was not desensitization due to AGC capture, as the ROS signals on the waterfall did not appear any weaker. 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however. 3. Pactor signals which have the same degree of darkness as the ROS carriers, and occur within the upper third of the ROS signal, cause loss of decoding, and it is not possible to fix the problem with passband tuning, as trying to do that appears to take away enough of the ROS signal that the degree of frequency hopping used is insufficient to overcome. Receiver is the IC-746Pro. 4. If more than one ROS signal is present on the frequency, ROS will decode one of them - apparently the strongest one - and the weaker one is blanked out until the stronger one goes away and the the weaker one is decoded. 5. Compared to Olivia 16-500, for example, the width of the ROS signal seems to be a disadvantage as far as handling QRM is concerned. Five Olivia 16-500 signals will fit in the same space as one ROS signal needs, so QRM, covering the top 40% of the ROS signal, for example, would probably not disrupt any of three Olivia signals in the bottom 60% of the ROS signal bandwidth. In other words, the wide bandwidth required for ROS to work is a disadvantage because IF filtering cannot remove narrower band QRM signals that fall within the area of the ROS signal, but IF filtering can remove the same QRM from the passband that has been narrowed to accept only an Olivia signal. A much
[digitalradio] Re: PSK SPOTS
What about PSKReporter? (http://www.pskreporter.info http://www.pskreporter.info ) While there is not a direct interface from the PSKReporter output back into your digital comm program (that I know of), there are certainly decent interfaces in fldigi (Thank you, David and friends) and HRD (Thank you, Simon and friends) to PSKReporter. And the data is pretty fresh. With the map display, there is no mystery which bits of traffic are DX. - Doug/KE7SEI --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ aa...@... wrote: AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Andy obrien Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 9:56 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] PSK SPOTS That is a good point, Alan. Now that i think about it, you would think that after 10 years we would have come up with a point and click method. In WinWarbler, one click in the waterfall selects a PSK signal, and one click of the Spot button generates an outgoing spot (via SpotCollector). Double-clicking a PSK Spot Database Entry in SpotCollector directs WinWarbler or MultiPSK to immediately begin decoding the spotted station, QSYing the transceiver as required to achieve the specified optimal offset. Alternatively, one can click a plotted DX spot on DXView's World Map or click a DX spot on Commander's bandspread to accomplish the same result. WinWarbler's broadband decoder continuously identifies active PSK QSOs within the receiver bandpass, listing the decoded callsigns in its Stations Heard window. Optionally, these callsigns can be inserted into SpotCollector's Spot Database, where they are color coded for need with respect to the user's award objectives and award progress, dynamically obtained from DXKeeper. Thus its straightforward to identify needed PSK DX. These capabilities have been in broad use by DXLab users for many years. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Something to consider about external automatic antenna tuners
That's not quite correct. There is also a cable that runs from the connector on the rear panel of the 746 to the tuner. This connector is commonly used for the Icom AH-4 style tuner. Rather than the LDG tuner simply sensing the RF, this cable commands the unit when the rig is tuned. I had wrongly assumed that it would also tell the tuner what frequency it was on. If I had done my homework I might have discovered this. It's not a show-stopper - only a very minor inconvenience. I wanted to pass it along for anyone else that might make the same assumption. 73 Dave KB3MOW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of jhaynesatalumni Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 9:58 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Something to consider about external automatic antenna tuners --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave 'Doc' Corio dco...@... wrote: However, there is one thing the tuner will NOT do. It will not remember any band or frequency, until the transmitter is keyed. Well, sure. The only thing going from the radio to the tuner is the antenna cable, so the tuner has no way to know that you have changed frequency on the transceiver. Whereas a tuner built into the radio, or one made for the radio you have and connecting to the radio with a control cable, can get frequency information from the radio. But the third-party tuner only knows you have changed frequency when you tickle it with some RF.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
Its here: http://db0lj.prgm.org/boxfiles/software/Gtor.zip Even works on linux (ubuntu 9.10) using wine. Per, sm0rwo From: wd4kpd wd4...@suddenlink.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, February 23, 2010 5:40:37 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this? A SOFTWARE G-TOR FOR SOUNDCARD... .? WHERE MIGHT IT BE FOUND. DAIVD/WD4KPD
Re: [digitalradio] GTOR- has anyone tried this?
Don't recall just when it came out but - Biggest problem with it was finding someone to have a QSO with. Once you did the link was very good. I think it was also used by a lot of the early BBS stations. Of course that was the problem with any ARQ mode that came along. Back in 1977 or so when you friend Alen come along with AMTOR that really was the 1st widely used ARQ mode. Very few could part with the $300 U.S. dollars for the kit. Sitting over in a cord board box in the storage area is AMTOR kit # 314. I recall at the time having never worked so many G stations the entire time that I had been a ham. And as they say the rest is history. John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] I'm curious about this Mix W oddity
Its happened so often that I'm now curious to know why a CQ response from a user of Mix W, always a Russian or an east European station, begins halfway down the screen. Each line of information is often two or three lines apart which means that sometimes the whole screen is jumping around with important information vanishing up the screen ! I now prevent this happening by clearing the receive window if my call appears halfway down the screen, the following text will then continue properly, where it should, at the top of the screen. What causes this and why does it only happen with Mix W ? Mel G0GQK
Re: [digitalradio] I'm curious about this Mix W oddity
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 02:56:31PM -, raf3151019 wrote: Its happened so often that I'm now curious to know why a CQ response from a user of Mix W, always a Russian or an east European station, begins halfway down the screen. Each line of information is often two or three lines apart which means that sometimes the whole screen is jumping around with important information vanishing up the screen ! I now prevent this happening by clearing the receive window if my call appears halfway down the screen, the following text will then continue properly, where it should, at the top of the screen. What causes this and why does it only happen with Mix W ? I've seen some hams begin a QSO with multiple newlines, which has the effect you describe. I don't run any other digital interface program, and so don't have the opportunity to compare. You might consider turning on the save logfile option for a while, and afterwards have a look at it to see if there are multiple newlines at the begining of the QSO where you see this occur. 73, de -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mi...@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin
Re: [digitalradio] GTOR- has anyone tried this?
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: I recall at the time having never worked so many G stations the entire time that I had been a ham. And as they say the rest is history. John, W0JAB I wonder if one of them was a friend of mine, Mike (G4SMA)? He lived just up the hill from the MEB depot that I worked at when in my late teens and I used to pop in to see him when I could. Mike now lives in Shropshire and it's been a long time since I last spoke to him, so not sure if he still uses AMTOR or RTTY anymore. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] GTOR- has anyone tried this?
No, never did work him but I did see a note in the log to look for him on 20 meters. At 09:31 AM 2/23/2010, you wrote: I wonder if one of them was a friend of mine, Mike (G4SMA)? He lived just up the hill from the MEB depot that I worked at when in my late teens and I used to pop in to see him when I could. Mike now lives in Shropshire and it's been a long time since I last spoke to him, so not sure if he still uses AMTOR or RTTY anymore. Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] RTTY frequencies?
I got a good response to my question last week about the reasons for the FSK or RTTY mode button on my Kenwood TS-940sat, Tentec Paragon, and the clubs Icom ic-746pro. Now I need to ask this - what frequencies are usually used on each band to do RTTY? The NAQP RTTY contest is this weekend and they are saying the ONLY bands not allowed for contest credit is 160m and the WARC bands. The ARRL's 'suggested' band plan calls for the following frequencies: 80m - 3.570-3.600MHz 40m - 7.040 and 7.080-7.125MHz 30m - 10.130-10.140MHz 20m - 14.070-14.095MHz 17m - 18.100-18.105MHz 15m - 21.070-21.110MHz 12m - 24.920-24.925MHz 10m - 28.070-28.150MHz Should I stick with these as my guidelines for this weekend or are there other areas of each band I should look for contacts? Thanks, James W8ISS
Re: [digitalradio] RTTY frequencies?
James, you will not have to LOOK. This contest will bring out thousabds of RTTY ops and 80-40-20-15-10 will be full if those bands are open. The ARRL band plan will be where you find them, but some operators will go higher, Andy K3UK On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:49 AM, James French w8...@wideopenwest.comwrote: I got a good response to my question last week about the reasons for the FSK or RTTY mode button on my Kenwood TS-940sat, Tentec Paragon, and the clubs Icom ic-746pro. Now I need to ask this - what frequencies are usually used on each band to do RTTY? The NAQP RTTY contest is this weekend and they are saying the ONLY bands not allowed for contest credit is 160m and the WARC bands. The ARRL's 'suggested' band plan calls for the following frequencies: 80m - 3.570-3.600MHz 40m - 7.040 and 7.080-7.125MHz 30m - 10.130-10.140MHz 20m - 14.070-14.095MHz 17m - 18.100-18.105MHz 15m - 21.070-21.110MHz 12m - 24.920-24.925MHz 10m - 28.070-28.150MHz Should I stick with these as my guidelines for this weekend or are there other areas of each band I should look for contacts? Thanks, James W8ISS
[digitalradio] BREAKING NEWS. ARRL: ROS is SS and NOT legal on HF in USA
FYI From: Henderson, Dan N1ND Subject: RE: Spread Spectrum To: Carol Fred deleted for privacy. Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 7:13 AM Hi Fred: I ran this by our technical experts. They concur that ROS is a spread spectrum mode and as such is not allowed by the FCC on bands below 222 MHz. Remember that approved emissions vary from IARU Region at times as well as between countries. So while the IARU Band Plan for Region 2 would allow it, SS is not permitted on the HF bands by the FCC/ Thanks and 73 Dan Henderson, N1ND Regulatory Information Manager ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio™ 860-594-0236 dhender...@arrl.org Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: PSK SPOTS in DXLAB
obrienaj wrote: Thanks Dave, Although I use Winwarbler and Spot Collector a lot, I have never really tried clicking on PSK31 spots . I will have to give that a try. Very useful. I wonder if this is the only application that does work well with PSK31 spots? The issue is not generating spots, it's the fact that very few psk spots are done in a fashion that when clicked, you are on the frequency decoding. I use DXLabs, great program (Thanks Dave!). I suspect if all used dxlabs we would not have this problem. But it appears that different programs spot the psk in different fashions. Some do an exact frequency spot, others a base frequency plus an offset (+1k) in the note, etc. This would be an opportunity for someone to develop a standard approach align. But if dx4win, and logger32 don't do it, you'll miss most of the dx'ers. Likewise, some of us use multipsk, and other digi programs instead of the suite program. So it needs to play in that regard as well. I see roughly a ten percent success rate clicking on psk spots, with rtty sstv being in the high 90% range. I don't lose sleep over this problem, but I have hardcore contester dxer friends (yes, I admit it) who like psk, but never use it for dx. And that's the reason when asked. And based on my experience, it's an opportunity for standardization. It needs to be a dial frequency type thing, not a get close hunt if you want to see more psk usage by that crowd. But there's another side of it. I kindof like not having contesters major dx chasers on psk! Maybe not being clickable is a good thing? Have fun, Alan km4ba
[digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
thank you very much for the linkperhaps meet u on the air soon. david/wd4kpd --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Per n59...@... wrote: Its here: http://db0lj.prgm.org/boxfiles/software/Gtor.zip Even works on linux (ubuntu 9.10) using wine. Per, sm0rwo From: wd4kpd wd4...@... To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, February 23, 2010 5:40:37 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this? A SOFTWARE G-TOR FOR SOUNDCARD... .? WHERE MIGHT IT BE FOUND. DAIVD/WD4KPD
[digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
??? running win-xp-pro with out board usb sound as well as mother board sound .. how do I select usb card .. can only see number box , sound seems to come from main sound card ..how can you work out what 'number' a sound card is ?? comport tx is fine Tnx - G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3uka...@... wrote: It works , Sholto. I am able to get PTT working and generate tones. Anyone for G-Tor? Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: Interesting. The about info reveals Mixw 2003. I also found this G-TOR (Golay -TOR) is an FSK mode that offers a fast transfer rate compared to Pactor. It incorporates a data inter-leaving system that assists in minimizing the effects of atmospheric noise and has the ability to fix garbled data. G-tor tries to perform all transmissions at 300 baud but drops to 200 baud if difficulties are encountered and finally to 100 baud. (The protocol that brought back those good photos of Saturn and Jupiter from the Voyager space shots was devised by M.Golay and now adapted for ham radio use.) G-tor is found in only one manufacture's TNC and is rarely used today. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, sholtofish sholto@ wrote: Came across this the other day: http://db0lj.prgm.org/boxfiles/software/Gtor.zip Looks like it's a sound card implementation of G-TOR?? Seems to have a butterfly icon so something to do with MixW?? Does it work?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
Hi I think 0 is the default sound card . 1 is the next etc. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 23.02.2010 21:29, graham787 wrote: ??? running win-xp-pro with out board usb sound as well as mother board sound .. how do I select usb card .. can only see number box , sound seems to come from main sound card ..how can you work out what 'number' a sound card is ?? comport tx is fine Tnx - G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3uka...@... wrote: It works , Sholto. I am able to get PTT working and generate tones. Anyone for G-Tor? Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: Interesting. The about info reveals Mixw 2003. I also found this G-TOR (Golay -TOR) is an FSK mode that offers a fast transfer rate compared to Pactor. It incorporates a data inter-leaving system that assists in minimizing the effects of atmospheric noise and has the ability to fix garbled data. G-tor tries to perform all transmissions at 300 baud but drops to 200 baud if difficulties are encountered and finally to 100 baud. (The protocol that brought back those good photos of Saturn and Jupiter from the Voyager space shots was devised by M.Golay and now adapted for ham radio use.) G-tor is found in only one manufacture's TNC and is rarely used today. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, sholtofish sholto@ wrote: Came across this the other day: http://db0lj.prgm.org/boxfiles/software/Gtor.zip Looks like it's a sound card implementation of G-TOR?? Seems to have a butterfly icon so something to do with MixW?? Does it work?
[digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
Ok Steinar ... I have tried numbers from 0 to 9 and nothing happens .. only sound from the motherboard sound card .. selecting in 3 produces random print .. so i assume its seeing the sound card .. but no tx audio ..only from the pc m/bd ..tried the wspr 3 and 6 setting .. no tx audio G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: Hi I think 0 is the default sound card . 1 is the next etc. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 23.02.2010 21:29, graham787 wrote: ??? running win-xp-pro with out board usb sound as well as mother board sound .. how do I select usb card .. can only see number box , sound seems to come from main sound card ..how can you work out what 'number' a sound card is ?? comport tx is fine Tnx - G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: It works , Sholto. I am able to get PTT working and generate tones. Anyone for G-Tor? Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: Interesting. The about info reveals Mixw 2003. I also found this G-TOR (Golay -TOR) is an FSK mode that offers a fast transfer rate compared to Pactor. It incorporates a data inter-leaving system that assists in minimizing the effects of atmospheric noise and has the ability to fix garbled data. G-tor tries to perform all transmissions at 300 baud but drops to 200 baud if difficulties are encountered and finally to 100 baud. (The protocol that brought back those good photos of Saturn and Jupiter from the Voyager space shots was devised by M.Golay and now adapted for ham radio use.) G-tor is found in only one manufacture's TNC and is rarely used today. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, sholtofish sholto@ wrote: Came across this the other day: http://db0lj.prgm.org/boxfiles/software/Gtor.zip Looks like it's a sound card implementation of G-TOR?? Seems to have a butterfly icon so something to do with MixW?? Does it work?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
The default sound card is 0, not 1. I can get the program to genrate tones but no way to select com ports to key the xmitter. 73 Buddy WB4M ??? running win-xp-pro with out board usb sound as well as mother board sound .. how do I select usb card .. can only see number box , sound seems to come from main sound card ..how can you work out what 'number' a sound card is ?? comport tx is fine Tnx - G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3uka...@... wrote: It works , Sholto. I am able to get PTT working and generate tones. Anyone for G-Tor? Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: Interesting. The about info reveals Mixw 2003. I also found this G-TOR (Golay -TOR) is an FSK mode that offers a fast transfer rate compared to Pactor. It incorporates a data inter-leaving system that assists in minimizing the effects of atmospheric noise and has the ability to fix garbled data. G-tor tries to perform all transmissions at 300 baud but drops to 200 baud if difficulties are encountered and finally to 100 baud. (The protocol that brought back those good photos of Saturn and Jupiter from the Voyager space shots was devised by M.Golay and now adapted for ham radio use.) G-tor is found in only one manufacture's TNC and is rarely used today. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, sholtofish sholto@ wrote: Came across this the other day: http://db0lj.prgm.org/boxfiles/software/Gtor.zip Looks like it's a sound card implementation of G-TOR?? Seems to have a butterfly icon so something to do with MixW?? Does it work? Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Suggesting calling frequencies: Modes 500Hz 3583,7073,14073,18103, 21073,24923, 28123 . Wider modes e.g. Olivia 32/1000, ROS16, ALE: 14109.7088. Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
Buddy .. you want to swop hihi ..its working the ptt fine (usb serial cable transistor switch) but no way , can get the usb sound card to make tx audio .. suspect that 3 in taking audio in s it producing random text 73- G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, F.R. Ashley gda...@... wrote: The default sound card is 0, not 1. I can get the program to genrate tones but no way to select com ports to key the xmitter. 73 Buddy WB4M ??? running win-xp-pro with out board usb sound as well as mother board sound .. how do I select usb card .. can only see number box , sound seems to come from main sound card ..how can you work out what 'number' a sound card is ?? comport tx is fine Tnx - G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: It works , Sholto. I am able to get PTT working and generate tones. Anyone for G-Tor? Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: Interesting. The about info reveals Mixw 2003. I also found this G-TOR (Golay -TOR) is an FSK mode that offers a fast transfer rate compared to Pactor. It incorporates a data inter-leaving system that assists in minimizing the effects of atmospheric noise and has the ability to fix garbled data. G-tor tries to perform all transmissions at 300 baud but drops to 200 baud if difficulties are encountered and finally to 100 baud. (The protocol that brought back those good photos of Saturn and Jupiter from the Voyager space shots was devised by M.Golay and now adapted for ham radio use.) G-tor is found in only one manufacture's TNC and is rarely used today. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, sholtofish sholto@ wrote: Came across this the other day: http://db0lj.prgm.org/boxfiles/software/Gtor.zip Looks like it's a sound card implementation of G-TOR?? Seems to have a butterfly icon so something to do with MixW?? Does it work? Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Suggesting calling frequencies: Modes 500Hz 3583,7073,14073,18103, 21073,24923, 28123 . Wider modes e.g. Olivia 32/1000, ROS16, ALE: 14109.7088. Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: New SDR available
Q Will this work with Simon Browns new sdr software ? G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@... wrote: Another one out in the market . nice and cheap .. Performance tests?? Dg9bfc Sigi _ Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] Im Auftrag von Peter Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Februar 2010 19:46 An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Betreff: [digitalradio] New SDR available Hi, all. I'm offering a new SDR, inspired by the Softrock-40 but with some significant improvements. Instead of a crystal LO, it uses two Analog Devices DDS chips, and has 5 selectable preselector filters. It also feature USB control. Anyone who's interested can find the details at http://www.lazydoge http://www.lazydogengineering.com/LD1home.htm ngineering.com/LD1home.htm and at my blog, www.garage-shoppe.com. 73, Pete, NI9N
[digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
... May be my set up .. I tried mmsstv a while ago and could not select the sound card , one of the guys on the site posted a 'fix' that gave a sound card select pop up .. worked fine after that I am using the ADS usb card . . Tnx - G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: Strange . I am using a Signalink USB . The on board is 0 and Signalink is 1, and it works fine with 1. la5vna Steinar On 23.02.2010 22:05, graham787 wrote: Ok Steinar ... I have tried numbers from 0 to 9 and nothing happens .. only sound from the motherboard sound card .. selecting in 3 produces random print .. so i assume its seeing the sound card .. but no tx audio ..only from the pc m/bd ..tried the wspr 3 and 6 setting .. no tx audio G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saanes@ wrote: Hi I think 0 is the default sound card . 1 is the next etc. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 23.02.2010 21:29, graham787 wrote: ??? running win-xp-pro with out board usb sound as well as mother board sound .. how do I select usb card .. can only see number box , sound seems to come from main sound card ..how can you work out what 'number' a sound card is ?? comport tx is fine Tnx - G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: It works , Sholto. I am able to get PTT working and generate tones. Anyone for G-Tor? Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: Interesting. The about info reveals Mixw 2003. I also found this G-TOR (Golay -TOR) is an FSK mode that offers a fast transfer rate compared to Pactor. It incorporates a data inter-leaving system that assists in minimizing the effects of atmospheric noise and has the ability to fix garbled data. G-tor tries to perform all transmissions at 300 baud but drops to 200 baud if difficulties are encountered and finally to 100 baud. (The protocol that brought back those good photos of Saturn and Jupiter from the Voyager space shots was devised by M.Golay and now adapted for ham radio use.) G-tor is found in only one manufacture's TNC and is rarely used today. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, sholtofish sholto@ wrote: Came across this the other day: http://db0lj.prgm.org/boxfiles/software/Gtor.zip Looks like it's a sound card implementation of G-TOR?? Seems to have a butterfly icon so something to do with MixW?? Does it work?
[digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
The ini file .. helps if you have one ! I have re installed , all is working , tx key and tx audio fine .. what is a good 80 mtr qrg ? tnx - G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: Strange . I am using a Signalink USB . The on board is 0 and Signalink is 1, and it works fine with 1. la5vna Steinar On 23.02.2010 22:05, graham787 wrote: Ok Steinar ... I have tried numbers from 0 to 9 and nothing happens .. only sound from the motherboard sound card .. selecting in 3 produces random print .. so i assume its seeing the sound card .. but no tx audio ..only from the pc m/bd ..tried the wspr 3 and 6 setting .. no tx audio G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saanes@ wrote: Hi I think 0 is the default sound card . 1 is the next etc. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 23.02.2010 21:29, graham787 wrote: ??? running win-xp-pro with out board usb sound as well as mother board sound .. how do I select usb card .. can only see number box , sound seems to come from main sound card ..how can you work out what 'number' a sound card is ?? comport tx is fine Tnx - G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: It works , Sholto. I am able to get PTT working and generate tones. Anyone for G-Tor? Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: Interesting. The about info reveals Mixw 2003. I also found this G-TOR (Golay -TOR) is an FSK mode that offers a fast transfer rate compared to Pactor. It incorporates a data inter-leaving system that assists in minimizing the effects of atmospheric noise and has the ability to fix garbled data. G-tor tries to perform all transmissions at 300 baud but drops to 200 baud if difficulties are encountered and finally to 100 baud. (The protocol that brought back those good photos of Saturn and Jupiter from the Voyager space shots was devised by M.Golay and now adapted for ham radio use.) G-tor is found in only one manufacture's TNC and is rarely used today. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, sholtofish sholto@ wrote: Came across this the other day: http://db0lj.prgm.org/boxfiles/software/Gtor.zip Looks like it's a sound card implementation of G-TOR?? Seems to have a butterfly icon so something to do with MixW?? Does it work?
[digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
3680 USB ? la5vna Steinar On 23.02.2010 22:59, graham787 wrote: The ini file .. helps if you have one ! I have re installed , all is working , tx key and tx audio fine .. what is a good 80 mtr qrg ? tnx - G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: Strange . I am using a Signalink USB . The on board is 0 and Signalink is 1, and it works fine with 1. la5vna Steinar On 23.02.2010 22:05, graham787 wrote: Ok Steinar ... I have tried numbers from 0 to 9 and nothing happens .. only sound from the motherboard sound card .. selecting in 3 produces random print .. so i assume its seeing the sound card .. but no tx audio ..only from the pc m/bd ..tried the wspr 3 and 6 setting .. no tx audio G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saanes@ wrote: Hi I think 0 is the default sound card . 1 is the next etc. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 23.02.2010 21:29, graham787 wrote: ??? running win-xp-pro with out board usb sound as well as mother board sound .. how do I select usb card .. can only see number box , sound seems to come from main sound card ..how can you work out what 'number' a sound card is ?? comport tx is fine Tnx - G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: It works , Sholto. I am able to get PTT working and generate tones. Anyone for G-Tor? Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: Interesting. The about info reveals Mixw 2003. I also found this G-TOR (Golay -TOR) is an FSK mode that offers a fast transfer rate compared to Pactor. It incorporates a data inter-leaving system that assists in minimizing the effects of atmospheric noise and has the ability to fix garbled data. G-tor tries to perform all transmissions at 300 baud but drops to 200 baud if difficulties are encountered and finally to 100 baud. (The protocol that brought back those good photos of Saturn and Jupiter from the Voyager space shots was devised by M.Golay and now adapted for ham radio use.) G-tor is found in only one manufacture's TNC and is rarely used today. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, sholtofish sholto@ wrote: Came across this the other day: http://db0lj.prgm.org/boxfiles/software/Gtor.zip Looks like it's a sound card implementation of G-TOR?? Seems to have a butterfly icon so something to do with MixW?? Does it work?
[digitalradio] Re : I'm curious about this Mix W oddity
The effects that you both have described are not similar to the events which happen when the station replies in a QSO. Nothing other than a normal everyday ham radio response appears, except that on occasions the response begins in the lower half of the screen. Insted of having the normal spacing like this, the following line would be as the above spacing the response begins in the lower half of the screen. When the text reaches the bottom of the screen it then makes, maybe, two or three jumps to get to the top. Its very irritating and that's why I clear the screen when it starts. Perhaps Mix W is not used much in the US, or if it is perhaps its a problem which only occurs in the cyrillic version. Perhaps its the way the user has set it up, and its been done cack handed ! Kind regards, Mel G0GQK
[digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, ocypret n5...@... wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? it seems to be whatever you want ! david/wd4kpd
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Only the ARRL technical staff has ruled it to be spread spectrum and therefore not legal on HF under FCC jurisdiction. However, the FCC itself has not ruled yet, so it may still be found to be legal. We will not know until the FCC issues an opinion. My personal guess is that they will say it is legal as long as the bandwidth never exceeds that of a SSB phone signal, even though it is FHSS. However, note that ROS cannot handle wide signal QRM, such as a 500 Hz-wide Pactor signal in the upper third of the signal width. The QRM-handling ability of spread spectrum is a function of the degree of spreading, compared to the width of interfering signals, and with only a 2500 Hz width to work with, it is only resistant to QRM from narrow modes, such as PSK31, but it is wide like Pactor-III, so it belongs in the highest segment of the data portions of the bands. Unfortunately, that is also where other wide modes hang out, so ROS will have to look for a home where there are few interfering signals. On 14.101, ROS had a lot of trouble from Pactor and even from multiple CW signals during the contest this past weekend. ROS would not print in the presence of the QRM and printed fine when the QRM left. I am hoping it has advantages for weak-signal work on UHF where it is inarguably legal. That is where I am going to use it. 73 - Skip KH6TY wd4kpd wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, ocypret n5...@... wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? it seems to be whatever you want ! david/wd4kpd
[digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
Am sending on 3680 usb at the moment connce to cqcq --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: 3680 USB ? la5vna Steinar
[digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
Sending connect to la5vna with 1700 hz tone set 22-35 gmt G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: 3680 USB ? la5vna Steinar
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
On 02/23/2010 03:26 PM, ocypret wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? There's a few things we all agree on: 1) The legality of a mode depends on the technical details of that mode, not on what the author calls the mode. 2) The FCC's lawyers are the definite authority. K3UK has sent a letter to the FCC to ask for clarification. Once the FCC responds, we'll know for sure :) -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
Ups wrong freq . try 3580 la5vna Steinar On 23.02.2010 23:10, Steinar Aanesland wrote: 3680 USB ? la5vna Steinar On 23.02.2010 22:59, graham787 wrote: The ini file .. helps if you have one ! I have re installed , all is working , tx key and tx audio fine .. what is a good 80 mtr qrg ? tnx - G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: Strange . I am using a Signalink USB . The on board is 0 and Signalink is 1, and it works fine with 1. la5vna Steinar On 23.02.2010 22:05, graham787 wrote: Ok Steinar ... I have tried numbers from 0 to 9 and nothing happens .. only sound from the motherboard sound card .. selecting in 3 produces random print .. so i assume its seeing the sound card .. but no tx audio ..only from the pc m/bd ..tried the wspr 3 and 6 setting .. no tx audio G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saanes@ wrote: Hi I think 0 is the default sound card . 1 is the next etc. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 23.02.2010 21:29, graham787 wrote: ??? running win-xp-pro with out board usb sound as well as mother board sound .. how do I select usb card .. can only see number box , sound seems to come from main sound card ..how can you work out what 'number' a sound card is ?? comport tx is fine Tnx - G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: It works , Sholto. I am able to get PTT working and generate tones. Anyone for G-Tor? Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: Interesting. The about info reveals Mixw 2003. I also found this G-TOR (Golay -TOR) is an FSK mode that offers a fast transfer rate compared to Pactor. It incorporates a data inter-leaving system that assists in minimizing the effects of atmospheric noise and has the ability to fix garbled data. G-tor tries to perform all transmissions at 300 baud but drops to 200 baud if difficulties are encountered and finally to 100 baud. (The protocol that brought back those good photos of Saturn and Jupiter from the Voyager space shots was devised by M.Golay and now adapted for ham radio use.) G-tor is found in only one manufacture's TNC and is rarely used today. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, sholtofish sholto@ wrote: Came across this the other day: http://db0lj.prgm.org/boxfiles/software/Gtor.zip Looks like it's a sound card implementation of G-TOR?? Seems to have a butterfly icon so something to do with MixW?? Does it work?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
3586 On 23.02.2010 23:26, Steinar Aanesland wrote: Ups wrong freq . try 3580 la5vna Steinar On 23.02.2010 23:10, Steinar Aanesland wrote: 3680 USB ? la5vna Steinar On 23.02.2010 22:59, graham787 wrote: The ini file .. helps if you have one ! I have re installed , all is working , tx key and tx audio fine .. what is a good 80 mtr qrg ? tnx - G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: Strange . I am using a Signalink USB . The on board is 0 and Signalink is 1, and it works fine with 1. la5vna Steinar On 23.02.2010 22:05, graham787 wrote: Ok Steinar ... I have tried numbers from 0 to 9 and nothing happens .. only sound from the motherboard sound card .. selecting in 3 produces random print .. so i assume its seeing the sound card .. but no tx audio ..only from the pc m/bd ..tried the wspr 3 and 6 setting .. no tx audio G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saanes@ wrote: Hi I think 0 is the default sound card . 1 is the next etc. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 23.02.2010 21:29, graham787 wrote: ??? running win-xp-pro with out board usb sound as well as mother board sound .. how do I select usb card .. can only see number box , sound seems to come from main sound card ..how can you work out what 'number' a sound card is ?? comport tx is fine Tnx - G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: It works , Sholto. I am able to get PTT working and generate tones. Anyone for G-Tor? Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienaj k3ukandy@ wrote: Interesting. The about info reveals Mixw 2003. I also found this G-TOR (Golay -TOR) is an FSK mode that offers a fast transfer rate compared to Pactor. It incorporates a data inter-leaving system that assists in minimizing the effects of atmospheric noise and has the ability to fix garbled data. G-tor tries to perform all transmissions at 300 baud but drops to 200 baud if difficulties are encountered and finally to 100 baud. (The protocol that brought back those good photos of Saturn and Jupiter from the Voyager space shots was devised by M.Golay and now adapted for ham radio use.) G-tor is found in only one manufacture's TNC and is rarely used today. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, sholtofish sholto@ wrote: Came across this the other day: http://db0lj.prgm.org/boxfiles/software/Gtor.zip Looks like it's a sound card implementation of G-TOR?? Seems to have a butterfly icon so something to do with MixW?? Does it work?
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
And the creator of the mode, in this case myselft, is who has to explain the technical details. ROS is not a SS modulation definitively, is a FSK of 144 tones. I have to explain better in a technical informer De: Rik van Riel r...@surriel.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mar,23 febrero, 2010 23:38 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` On 02/23/2010 03:26 PM, ocypret wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? There's a few things we all agree on: 1) The legality of a mode depends on the technical details of that mode, not on what the author calls the mode. 2) The FCC's lawyers are the definite authority. K3UK has sent a letter to the FCC to ask for clarification. Once the FCC responds, we'll know for sure :) -- All rights reversed.
[digitalradio] ROS . FCC request and response
-- Forwarded message -- From: Tim - N3TL Date: Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 3:58 PM Following is the complete text of the request I made to the FCC for a ruling on ROS use on HF by licensed U.S. amateurs, along with the response from the FCC I just received. As part of my request, I provided PDF copies of two documents that Jose has prepared and made available on the ROS blog site: 1 – His user guide for the software. 2 – His description of the mode. Please see below: Summary* : Request for clarification of new amateur radio digital mode Description* : Within the past week, a new digital mode - called ROS - has surfaced on the HR amateur bands. Its creator refers to it as spread spectrum, but there is some debate over whether the mode truly represents spread spectrum as defined by the FCC. I am writing to request a review of the creator's documentation, which I have attached, and a formal ruling on whether this mode is legal for use below 222 mHz by licensed U.S. amateurs. It would be very helpful if the FCC, upon completion of this review, would distribute a public announcement of its determination to appropriate amateur radio and media outlets. Thank you very much in advance for your time and prompt attention to this request. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Timothy J. Lilley - N3TL Solution Details : Dear Mr. Lilley, Section 97.305 is the rule that specifies where different emission types are allowed to be transmitted on different bands. ROS is viewed as spread spectrum, and the creator of the system describes it as that. We assume that he knows what he created. 97.305 authorizes spread spectrum emission types (defined in Section 97.3) to be transmitted by FCC licensed amateur stations at places we regulate communications only on 222-225 MHz and higher frequency amateur bands. European telecommunication regulatory authorities may authorize amateur stations in Europe to use SS on the HF bands, but this is of no concern to us. The Commission does not determine if a particular mode truly represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules. The licensee of the station transmitting the emission is responsible for determining that the operation of the station complies with the rules. This would include determining the type of emission the station is transmitting and that the frequencies being used are authorized for that type of emission. Should you have any further questions, or need additional information, please contact the ULS Customer Support Hotline at (877) 480-3201, selecting option 2. Sincerely, Agent 3820 I have discontinued further experimentation with ROS. 73, Tim – N3TL [image: Yahoo! Groups]http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlN2tnNGpuBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzQxMTE5NDUxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MzEwOARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njk1ODcyMw-- Switch to: Text-Onlyrosdigitalmodemgroup-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=change+delivery+format:+Traditional, Daily Digestrosdigitalmodemgroup-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=email+delivery:+Digest• Unsubscriberosdigitalmodemgroup-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=unsubscribe• Terms of Use http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ .
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz. So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is. e,g. If I came out with a new mode that was just CW, but claimed it was SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to get any use in the USA. Andy K3UK On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:15 PM, wd4kpd wd4...@suddenlink.net wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, ocypret n5...@... wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? it seems to be whatever you want ! david/wd4kpd
[digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
calling you on 3586 2355 - g ..
Re: [digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
I can hear you , but you are weak. No connect :( la5vna Steinar On 23.02.2010 23:36, graham787 wrote: Sending connect to la5vna with 1700 hz tone set 22-35 gmt G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: 3680 USB ? la5vna Steinar
Re: [digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
Calling you now 3586 usb On 23.02.2010 23:55, graham787 wrote: calling you on 3586 2355 - g ..
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Is legal because ROS is a FSK modulation. De: ocypret n5...@arrl.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mar,23 febrero, 2010 21:26 Asunto: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not?
RE: [digitalradio] BREAKING NEWS. ARRL: ROS is SS and NOT legal on HF in USA
You were right, Skip. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Andy obrien Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 11:53 AM To: 30...@yahoogroups.com; digitalradio Subject: [digitalradio] BREAKING NEWS. ARRL: ROS is SS and NOT legal on HF in USA FYI From: Henderson, Dan N1ND Subject: RE: Spread Spectrum To: Carol Fred deleted for privacy. Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 7:13 AM Hi Fred: I ran this by our technical experts. They concur that ROS is a spread spectrum mode and as such is not allowed by the FCC on bands below 222 MHz. Remember that approved emissions vary from IARU Region at times as well as between countries. So while the IARU Band Plan for Region 2 would allow it, SS is not permitted on the HF bands by the FCC/ Thanks and 73 Dan Henderson, N1ND Regulatory Information Manager ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio™ 860-594-0236 dhender...@arrl.org Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.730 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2704 - Release Date: 02/23/10 02:34:00 Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Suggesting calling frequencies: Modes 500Hz 3583,7073,14073,18103, 21073,24923, 28123 . Wider modes e.g. Olivia 32/1000, ROS16, ALE: 14109.7088. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Next step is to formally petition the FCC to allow SS if the bandwidth does not exceed 3000 Hz, or the width of a SSB phone signal. Mark Miller, N5RFX, has experience in submitting petitions to the FCC, and had one granted. In case anyone wishes to pursue this further, he may be able to help. If ROS is really worth saving for US hams, it is worth fighting for! 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz. So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is. e,g. If I came out with a new mode that was just CW, but claimed it was SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to get any use in the USA. Andy K3UK On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:15 PM, wd4kpd wd4...@suddenlink.net mailto:wd4...@suddenlink.net wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, ocypret n5...@... wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? it seems to be whatever you want ! david/wd4kpd
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
KH6TY wrote: Only the ARRL technical staff has ruled it to be spread spectrum and therefore not legal on HF under FCC jurisdiction. However, the FCC itself has not ruled yet, so it may still be found to be legal. We will not know until the FCC issues an opinion. My personal guess is that they will say it is legal as long as the bandwidth never exceeds that of a SSB phone signal, even though it is FHSS. I've just made a suggestion on the ROS Yahoo Group that the discussion may warrant its own Yahoo Group to debate the ins and outs of this question. It may be that, in the not so distant future, debates from others who are pro and anti the mode, based upon their reading of a variety of licence conditions in various countries, could then be directed to the area for debating these issues. Thus leaving the Digitalradio and ROSMODEM groups free to discuss the practicalities and enjoyment of using digital modes and ROS free from the endless debate about what is 'Illegal, immoral, or makes you fat'. Thanks - Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Thank you Andy .. This has been the point of many [posters here all along. It is only considered spread spectrum because the author claimed it so, not because it is technically so. Jose, are you hearing us? because of the way your program operates an SSB transmitter, it should be defined as a form of FSK, NOT SPREAD SPECTRUM Many of us here in the US would like to use your program and experiment with it, but we are regulated by the FCC (we US hams did not write the rules we have to abide by). They determined it to be spread spectrum solely because you have declared it as such, and apparently for no other reason. Can you offer us some help here Jose? (like maybe recheck if it really is spread spectrum vs FSK) and re-write your description? Thanks, John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz. So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is. e,g. If I came out with a new mode that was just CW, but claimed it was SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to get any use in the USA. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
John, the only person in the world who know what is ROS is the person who have created it. And the creator say that ROS is a FSK of 144 tones with a Viterbi FEC Coder and a header of synchronization. De: John ke5h...@taylorent.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:06 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Thank you Andy .. This has been the point of many [posters here all along. It is only considered spread spectrum because the author claimed it so, not because it is technically so. Jose, are you hearing us? because of the way your program operates an SSB transmitter, it should be defined as a form of FSK, NOT SPREAD SPECTRUM Many of us here in the US would like to use your program and experiment with it, but we are regulated by the FCC (we US hams did not write the rules we have to abide by). They determined it to be spread spectrum solely because you have declared it as such, and apparently for no other reason. Can you offer us some help here Jose? (like maybe recheck if it really is spread spectrum vs FSK) and re-write your description? Thanks, John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Andy obrien k3uka...@.. . wrote: The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz. So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is. e,g. If I came out with a new mode that was just CW, but claimed it was SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to get any use in the USA. Andy K3UK
RE: [digitalradio] Re: PSK SPOTS in DXLAB
AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Alan Barrow Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 11:57 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: PSK SPOTS in DXLAB obrienaj wrote: Thanks Dave, Although I use Winwarbler and Spot Collector a lot, I have never really tried clicking on PSK31 spots . I will have to give that a try. Very useful. I wonder if this is the only application that does work well with PSK31 spots? The issue is not generating spots, it's the fact that very few psk spots are done in a fashion that when clicked, you are on the frequency decoding. I use DXLabs, great program (Thanks Dave!). I suspect if all used dxlabs we would not have this problem. But it appears that different programs spot the psk in different fashions. Some do an exact frequency spot, others a base frequency plus an offset (+1k) in the note, etc. This would be an opportunity for someone to develop a standard approach align. But if dx4win, and logger32 don't do it, you'll miss most of the dx'ers. Users of these applications could request that PSK spot generation be automated to post the correct frequency (rig frequency +/- audio offset). Likewise, some of us use multipsk, and other digi programs instead of the suite program. So it needs to play in that regard as well. I see roughly a ten percent success rate clicking on psk spots, with rtty sstv being in the high 90% range. I don't lose sleep over this problem, but I have hardcore contester dxer friends (yes, I admit it) who like psk, but never use it for dx. And that's the reason when asked. And based on my experience, it's an opportunity for standardization. During my occasional holiday-style DX operations, the primary impediment to using PSK has been the slow QSO rate caused by macro-itis. It needs to be a dial frequency type thing, not a get close hunt if you want to see more psk usage by that crowd. But there's another side of it. I kindof like not having contesters major dx chasers on psk! Maybe not being clickable is a good thing? Broadband decoding has the potential of making pileups much more efficient. XF4DL made ~1000 PSK QSOs (out of 58K total) over the course of 10 days; perhaps Juergen DL8LE can share his perspective. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
I used: System Info for Windows v1.67 (Build 626) --- March 17, 2007 Freeware Version -- Copyright © 2004-2007 Gabriel Topala to determine which is the device number. In my case, receive card (Audigy 2) is device 9 and transmit card (AC-97) is card 1. In my case, setting 0 in my configuration blocked the GTOR program. I am still to connect to someone... 73, Jose, CO2JA --- El 23/02/2010 15:37, Steinar Aanesland escribió: Hi I think 0 is the default sound card . 1 is the next etc. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 23.02.2010 21:29, graham787 wrote: ??? running win-xp-pro with out board usb sound as well as mother board sound .. how do I select usb card .. can only see number box , sound seems to come from main sound card ..how can you work out what 'number' a sound card is ?? comport tx is fine Tnx - G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienajk3uka...@... wrote: It works , Sholto. I am able to get PTT working and generate tones. Anyone for G-Tor? Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, obrienajk3ukandy@ wrote: Interesting. The about info reveals Mixw 2003. I also found this G-TOR (Golay -TOR) is an FSK mode that offers a fast transfer rate compared to Pactor. It incorporates a data inter-leaving system that assists in minimizing the effects of atmospheric noise and has the ability to fix garbled data. G-tor tries to perform all transmissions at 300 baud but drops to 200 baud if difficulties are encountered and finally to 100 baud. (The protocol that brought back those good photos of Saturn and Jupiter from the Voyager space shots was devised by M.Golay and now adapted for ham radio use.) G-tor is found in only one manufacture's TNC and is rarely used today. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, sholtofishsholto@ wrote: Came across this the other day: http://db0lj.prgm.org/boxfiles/software/Gtor.zip Looks like it's a sound card implementation of G-TOR?? Seems to have a butterfly icon so something to do with MixW?? Does it work? Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Suggesting calling frequencies: Modes500Hz 3583,7073,14073,18103, 21073,24923, 28123 . Wider modes e.g. Olivia 32/1000, ROS16, ALE: 14109.7088. Yahoo! Groups Links -- MSc. Ing. Jose Angel Amador Fundora Profesor Auxiliar Departamento de Telecomunicaciones Facultad de Ingenieria Electrica, CUJAE Calle 114 #11901 e/ 119 y 127 Marianao 19390, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba Tel: (53 7) 266-3445 Email: amador at electrica.cujae.edu.cu
[digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Thanks Jose .. Now with that cleared up, can you make those corrections / re-definitions to your distributed documentation to reflect that it is indeed FSK rather than spread spectrum? That little detail from you, the author of the program, is what is causing such an uproar that is eliminating the use of your program on HF frequencies here in the USA. thanks again for such a neat looking program. I hope to be able to QSO with you using it soon Thank you so much and keep up the great work, John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@... wrote: John, the only person in the world who know what is ROS is the person who have created it. And the creator say that ROS is a FSK of 144 tones with a Viterbi FEC Coder and a header of synchronization. De: John ke5h...@... Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:06 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`  Thank you Andy .. This has been the point of many [posters here all along. It is only considered spread spectrum because the author claimed it so, not because it is technically so. Jose, are you hearing us? because of the way your program operates an SSB transmitter, it should be defined as a form of FSK, NOT SPREAD SPECTRUM Many of us here in the US would like to use your program and experiment with it, but we are regulated by the FCC (we US hams did not write the rules we have to abide by). They determined it to be spread spectrum solely because you have declared it as such, and apparently for no other reason. Can you offer us some help here Jose? (like maybe recheck if it really is spread spectrum vs FSK) and re-write your description? Thanks, John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Andy obrien k3ukandy@ . wrote: The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz. So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is. e,g. If I came out with a new mode that was just CW, but claimed it was SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to get any use in the USA. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
John wrote: Can you offer us some help here Jose? (like maybe recheck if it really is spread spectrum vs FSK) and re-write your description? Unfortunately John, you cannot so easily put the genie back into the bottle. This is why I think you now need your own Yahoo Group to debate these questions, as it seems to be a USA centric debate that is almost taking over two Yahoo Groups some of whose users, I would suggest on my own behalf only, are now getting a bit tired of the debate. If you had your own group those who were interested could join and debate, organise their lobby groups, both for and against, rehearse their arguments and make their pontifications without troubling those who either could care less, or just want to get on with using Digitalradio modes on the air. Or, would the rest of the users of Digitalradio like to see this debate go on, and on, and on, as I think it will from my personal experience of such debates within the UK Amateur Radio population. Most notably the old uk.rec.radio mail group of fond, if acidic, memory... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Jose, You will have to disclose the algorithm that determines the spreading on ROS (independent of the data), or bandwidth expansion, if that is actually used. You will have to convince technical people that will show your new description to our FCC that your original description was wrong and prove it by revealing your code. I think this is the only way to get the FCC opinion reversed. You now have a difficult task before you, but I wish you success, as ROS is a really fun mode. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Is legal because ROS is a FSK modulation. *De:* ocypret n5...@arrl.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* mar,23 febrero, 2010 21:26 *Asunto:* [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
You can download ROS User Guide 1.0 The introduction explain what is ROS and It speak about a 144 tone FSK. In a few days a will write a introduction to FSK esquemes. Thanks. De: John ke5h...@taylorent.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:06 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Thank you Andy .. This has been the point of many [posters here all along. It is only considered spread spectrum because the author claimed it so, not because it is technically so. Jose, are you hearing us? because of the way your program operates an SSB transmitter, it should be defined as a form of FSK, NOT SPREAD SPECTRUM Many of us here in the US would like to use your program and experiment with it, but we are regulated by the FCC (we US hams did not write the rules we have to abide by). They determined it to be spread spectrum solely because you have declared it as such, and apparently for no other reason. Can you offer us some help here Jose? (like maybe recheck if it really is spread spectrum vs FSK) and re-write your description? Thanks, John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Andy obrien k3uka...@.. . wrote: The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz. So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is. e,g. If I came out with a new mode that was just CW, but claimed it was SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to get any use in the USA. Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
Stiner .. will try again wed night , for soem reason I have to select 3 as the audio in to the prog . could see a signal +/- 1700 on speclab , 15 db over noise .. also one signal was quite wide ? 73 - Graham . --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: 3586
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Commercial and military SS systems also use FSK so that not likely alleviate the problem. The pseudorandom movement of the center frequency is the issue. Since the object is to prevent intersymbol interference due to multipath spread, one way around the legal issue is to transmit even symbols on one set of frequencies and odd symbols on another set of frequencies. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jose alberto nieto ros To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 23:00 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Is legal because ROS is a FSK modulation. -- De: ocypret n5...@arrl.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mar,23 febrero, 2010 21:26 Asunto: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not?
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Hi, KH6. I only i am going to describe in a technicals article how run the mode. If FCC want the code they will have to buy it me, that is obvious. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:31 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, You will have to disclose the algorithm that determines the spreading on ROS (independent of the data), or bandwidth expansion, if that is actually used. You will have to convince technical people that will show your new description to our FCC that your original description was wrong and prove it by revealing your code. I think this is the only way to get the FCC opinion reversed. You now have a difficult task before you, but I wish you success, as ROS is a really fun mode. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Is legal because ROS is a FSK modulation. De: ocypret n5...@arrl.net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mar,23 febrero, 2010 21:26 Asunto: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
This is partially a language problem. A complete block diagram of both the transmit and receive sides of the system would do wonders to clarify what the system actually is. The partial receive diagram surely looked like MSK to me. From: jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo.es Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:14:07 + (GMT) To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` John, the only person in the world who know what is ROS is the person who have created it. And the creator say that ROS is a FSK of 144 tones with a Viterbi FEC Coder and a header of synchronization. De: John ke5h...@taylorent.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:06 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Thank you Andy .. This has been the point of many [posters here all along. It is only considered spread spectrum because the author claimed it so, not because it is technically so. Jose, are you hearing us? because of the way your program operates an SSB transmitter, it should be defined as a form of FSK, NOT SPREAD SPECTRUM Many of us here in the US would like to use your program and experiment with it, but we are regulated by the FCC (we US hams did not write the rules we have to abide by). They determined it to be spread spectrum solely because you have declared it as such, and apparently for no other reason. Can you offer us some help here Jose? (like maybe recheck if it really is spread spectrum vs FSK) and re-write your description? Thanks, John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , Andy obrien k3uka...@.. . wrote: The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz. So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is. e,g. If I came out with a new mode that was just CW, but claimed it was SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to get any use in the USA. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
John wrote: Thanks Jose .. Now with that cleared up, can you make those corrections / re-definitions to your distributed documentation to reflect that it is indeed FSK rather than spread spectrum? That little detail from you, the author of the program, is what is causing such an uproar that is eliminating the use of your program on HF frequencies here in the USA. Oh dear, John, If you think that the people that oppose this in your country will just roll over now that Jose has made a statement that ROS is no longer Spread Spectrum, then I think that you are in for a bad surprise... In all my Amateur Radio life I have come to realise that some Radio Amateurs are intent on telling other Radio Amateurs what they (the others) can and cannot do. ROS has stirred up the 'You cannot do that' crowd and they have gained a victory in getting someone to say that it is illegal. The idea that Jose now says that it isn't what it was that he said it was originally will cut no ice with them, if I am any judge of the politics of Amateur Radio. The cry of 'It's illegal, it's immoral, or it makes you fat' has been raised and taken up by certain people who 'know best' what you all need to do in the USA. Now they have 1st blood in that it seems that 'someone' has come out and said it is illegal (whether or not they have the authority to say that is immaterial, someone with referent power has said it) and now you are on the defensive in trying to say that it was all a big mistake, Jose never meant to say what he said and it's all legal, honest... Until the UK licence was effectively deregulated, we used to get these debates all the time. In fact we still get them when people don't read the new conditions and refer back to old conditions, but that's just because it takes a while for some people to realise that the rules have changed. Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Thanks again Jose, I have all your documentation (current only) and I think this is where some of the confusion was created. part of your documentation clearly defines the transmissions as spread spectrum. In the true sense, this is not really correct as you have noted. In true spread spectrum, the instantaneous transmitted frequency is not necessarily random at all. Rather, the transmitter and receiver MUST be synchronized to a common pattern via an algorithm/code of some sort. Since your transmitter output frequency is determined only by the input tones, which are determined by the input data + FEC coding, it does NOT become SS, as you have correctly noted. It should not be necessary to jump through numerous legal hoops solely because someone else sent an unfinished document to the FCC and asked for a ruling. So far, there has been no ruling, only and opinion based on the data presented in the request. My suggestion would be simply remove any references to spread spectrum and change those references to FSK instead in ROS documentation v1.01. This should easily provide any US amateur plenty of backup to be able to show good faith that he is operating within the US FCC rules. Thanks again, John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@... wrote: You can download ROS User Guide 1.0 The introduction explain what is ROS and It speak about a 144 tone FSK. In a few days a will write a introduction to FSK esquemes. Thanks. De: John ke5h...@... Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:06 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`  Thank you Andy .. This has been the point of many [posters here all along. It is only considered spread spectrum because the author claimed it so, not because it is technically so. Jose, are you hearing us? because of the way your program operates an SSB transmitter, it should be defined as a form of FSK, NOT SPREAD SPECTRUM Many of us here in the US would like to use your program and experiment with it, but we are regulated by the FCC (we US hams did not write the rules we have to abide by). They determined it to be spread spectrum solely because you have declared it as such, and apparently for no other reason. Can you offer us some help here Jose? (like maybe recheck if it really is spread spectrum vs FSK) and re-write your description? Thanks, John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Andy obrien k3ukandy@ . wrote: The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz. So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is. e,g. If I came out with a new mode that was just CW, but claimed it was SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to get any use in the USA. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Yes John. In the firt time, the document it was an introduction to SS, but the document didn't explain anything about Viterbi decoder, synronization, etc... ROS is not a SS modulation, ROS use Vitervi decoder for generate a matrix of 9x16 =144 tones but that is not SS. If a person send the incomplete file to the FFC without my authorization, that's is not my problem. He can send too to the FCC how work a racing car, for example. And in the second place, ROS is a beta version. That's mean that ROS is not finished yet, it is under experimentation. When I finish it then i will explain how work. De: John ke5h...@taylorent.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:51 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Thanks again Jose, I have all your documentation (current only) and I think this is where some of the confusion was created. part of your documentation clearly defines the transmissions as spread spectrum. In the true sense, this is not really correct as you have noted. In true spread spectrum, the instantaneous transmitted frequency is not necessarily random at all. Rather, the transmitter and receiver MUST be synchronized to a common pattern via an algorithm/code of some sort. Since your transmitter output frequency is determined only by the input tones, which are determined by the input data + FEC coding, it does NOT become SS, as you have correctly noted. It should not be necessary to jump through numerous legal hoops solely because someone else sent an unfinished document to the FCC and asked for a ruling. So far, there has been no ruling, only and opinion based on the data presented in the request. My suggestion would be simply remove any references to spread spectrum and change those references to FSK instead in ROS documentation v1.01. This should easily provide any US amateur plenty of backup to be able to show good faith that he is operating within the US FCC rules. Thanks again, John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, jose alberto nieto ros nietorosdj@ ... wrote: You can download ROS User Guide 1.0 The introduction explain what is ROS and It speak about a 144 tone FSK. In a few days a will write a introduction to FSK esquemes. Thanks. _ _ __ De: John ke5h...@... Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:06 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`  Thank you Andy .. This has been the point of many [posters here all along. It is only considered spread spectrum because the author claimed it so, not because it is technically so. Jose, are you hearing us? because of the way your program operates an SSB transmitter, it should be defined as a form of FSK, NOT SPREAD SPECTRUM Many of us here in the US would like to use your program and experiment with it, but we are regulated by the FCC (we US hams did not write the rules we have to abide by). They determined it to be spread spectrum solely because you have declared it as such, and apparently for no other reason. Can you offer us some help here Jose? (like maybe recheck if it really is spread spectrum vs FSK) and re-write your description? Thanks, John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Andy obrien k3ukandy@ . wrote: The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz. So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is. e,g. If I came out with a new mode that was just CW, but claimed it was SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to get any use in the USA. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Jose, I am only trying to suggest whatever ideas I can to get ROS declared to be legal. You have made such a strong case for FHSS already, that only saying you were mistaken probably will not convince the FCC. They will assume you are only changing the description so ROS appears to be legal and will demand proof that it is not FHSS to change their minds. This is only my personal, unbiased, opinion, as I would like very much for you to succeed. Essentially, you must PROVE that, spreading is NOT accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. How do you do that without disclosing the code? At this point, I doubt that the FCC will believe mere words, because there is so much pressure to allow ROS in HF in this country. Keep in mind the mess that Toyota finds itself by previously denying there is any substantial problem with unattended acceleration or braking of their cars. That may still prove to be true (i.e. not substantial), but the government here is now demanding that Toyota SHOW proof that there is no problem, and not merely saying there is not. This is currently a very hot topic with the government and Congress and on the minds of everyone. So I assume likewise that PROOF will have to be SHOWN that there is no spreading signal used in ROS. Mere words will probably not be enough, and there is probably only ONE chance to succeed, so you need to be successful the first time. If you decide to only change the description and nothing further, I sincerely hope I am wrong, and I could well be. But, that is your decision, not mine. If you need to protect your invention, then just fully document and witness it, or do whatever is necessary in your country and others, and be free to do whatever is required to win this battle. Good luck! 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Hi, KH6. I only i am going to describe in a technicals article how run the mode. If FCC want the code they will have to buy it me, that is obvious. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:31 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, You will have to disclose the algorithm that determines the spreading on ROS (independent of the data), or bandwidth expansion, if that is actually used. You will have to convince technical people that will show your new description to our FCC that your original description was wrong and prove it by revealing your code. I think this is the only way to get the FCC opinion reversed. You now have a difficult task before you, but I wish you success, as ROS is a really fun mode. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Is legal because ROS is a FSK modulation. *De:* ocypret n5...@arrl.net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* mar,23 febrero, 2010 21:26 *Asunto:* [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not?
[digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Hi HI Dave .. Unfortunately, you may indeed be right. As my posts on this topic speak for themselves, I never once stated either way if it was or was not legal. My question all along has been, did the law against the use of spread spectrum even apply in this case at all, based on what the program actually did, not what was claimed. As I read the FCC rules here in this country, the rule does NOT make a mode illegal because the author claimed it to be spread spectrum. It makes the transmission of spread spectrum signals on the HF amateur bands below 225-250 mhz. This program never did meet the test for making it actually spread spectrum other than the authors claim of it in his own documentation. Indeed, it is likely just a language barrier that is not all that uncommon. A simply translation issue should not really be labeled as egregious. As you imply, we will see how the nay say'ers fair in this. there are indeed those that can't bear to not be the ones in control of the crowd. Me, I really don't care one way or the other, but do prefer that real facts be discussed rather than conjured up arguments based on inapplicable rules. 73 sir John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@... wrote: John wrote: Thanks Jose .. Now with that cleared up, can you make those corrections / re-definitions to your distributed documentation to reflect that it is indeed FSK rather than spread spectrum? That little detail from you, the author of the program, is what is causing such an uproar that is eliminating the use of your program on HF frequencies here in the USA. Oh dear, John, If you think that the people that oppose this in your country will just roll over now that Jose has made a statement that ROS is no longer Spread Spectrum, then I think that you are in for a bad surprise... In all my Amateur Radio life I have come to realise that some Radio Amateurs are intent on telling other Radio Amateurs what they (the others) can and cannot do. ROS has stirred up the 'You cannot do that' crowd and they have gained a victory in getting someone to say that it is illegal. The idea that Jose now says that it isn't what it was that he said it was originally will cut no ice with them, if I am any judge of the politics of Amateur Radio. The cry of 'It's illegal, it's immoral, or it makes you fat' has been raised and taken up by certain people who 'know best' what you all need to do in the USA. Now they have 1st blood in that it seems that 'someone' has come out and said it is illegal (whether or not they have the authority to say that is immaterial, someone with referent power has said it) and now you are on the defensive in trying to say that it was all a big mistake, Jose never meant to say what he said and it's all legal, honest... Until the UK licence was effectively deregulated, we used to get these debates all the time. In fact we still get them when people don't read the new conditions and refer back to old conditions, but that's just because it takes a while for some people to realise that the rules have changed. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
John wrote: This should easily provide any US amateur plenty of backup to be able to show good faith that he is operating within the US FCC rules. I think that you may be ignoring me John, and possibly for good reasons. However, and I do hate to be a wet blanket, but your opponents in the USA are not going to go away just because you want them to. And I talk as one who wants ROS to be legal in the USA, as well as everywhere else, so that we can all use the mode. Now that some people have it in their heads that ROS is Spread Spectrum you have an up hill task to persuade them that it isn't. You now also have a number of people who have all the ammunition to fire back if you say to the FCC that this isn't Spread Spectrum, as they've also seen the same communications on here that I have. Unfortunately, what we have now is some people who want to stop this mode of transmission in the USA who seem to have obtained a decree from a referent power that it is illegal. Unless you can get a retraction, or a decree from a higher authority, the Amateur Radio enthusiasts that wish to stop other Amateur Radio enthusiasts will just report the one lot of Radio Amateurs to the authorities in the hope that they will stop that lot of Radio Amateurs from enjoying the bands. To go back to a Stranger in a Strange Land, you will grok that some of us wish to hate the others. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Any petition should reduce regulation rather than increase its complexity by continually adding loopholes. ROS is not the only mode that is currently illegal -- there are single carrier PSK digital modes that U.S. amateurs can't use because of the baud rate limit. U.S. regulations should be harmonized with the rest of the world by eliminating baud rate restrictions and emission designators entirely. Outside the U.S., any form of modulation less than 8 kHz wide is allowed below 29 MHz. If we align our regulations with the rest of the world there will be no more legal problems with software written outside the U.S. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: KH6TY To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 22:59 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Next step is to formally petition the FCC to allow SS if the bandwidth does not exceed 3000 Hz, or the width of a SSB phone signal. Mark Miller, N5RFX, has experience in submitting petitions to the FCC, and had one granted. In case anyone wishes to pursue this further, he may be able to help. If ROS is really worth saving for US hams, it is worth fighting for! 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Dave, It is probably wrong to assume that there are any groups opposed to using ROS in the US. I don't see that at all. US hams generally try to follow the FCC regulations as best they can, and if they are not sure what they mean, they ask. If the reply is not to their liking, that is too bad, but they prefer to follow the law. I don't think it is any more complicated than that. The thing to do is be as smart as possible and do what is necessary to either get the FCC opinion reversed, or petition to allow spread spectrum (that can be monitored by third parties, as ROS already can be) if the bandwidth does not exceed the width of a SSB phone signal. The people at the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, which is probably the one that will finally interpret what you can and cannot do, are very reasonable, in my opinion, as I have had direct communications with them as an appointed member of the ARRL committee on regulation by bandwidth. Now is not the time to blame groups of different opinions for what has now been decided, but to work hard and as smart as possible to convince the FCC that it is OK to use ROS on HF. As I suggested to Jose, merely changing words, or blaming it on translation, is not going to succeed, in my opinion. Rather PROOF that it is not spread spectrum (i.e. does NOT meet condition #2) will probably do it, but just saying so will not. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave Ackrill wrote: John wrote: This should easily provide any US amateur plenty of backup to be able to show good faith that he is operating within the US FCC rules. I think that you may be ignoring me John, and possibly for good reasons. However, and I do hate to be a wet blanket, but your opponents in the USA are not going to go away just because you want them to. And I talk as one who wants ROS to be legal in the USA, as well as everywhere else, so that we can all use the mode. Now that some people have it in their heads that ROS is Spread Spectrum you have an up hill task to persuade them that it isn't. You now also have a number of people who have all the ammunition to fire back if you say to the FCC that this isn't Spread Spectrum, as they've also seen the same communications on here that I have. Unfortunately, what we have now is some people who want to stop this mode of transmission in the USA who seem to have obtained a decree from a referent power that it is illegal. Unless you can get a retraction, or a decree from a higher authority, the Amateur Radio enthusiasts that wish to stop other Amateur Radio enthusiasts will just report the one lot of Radio Amateurs to the authorities in the hope that they will stop that lot of Radio Amateurs from enjoying the bands. To go back to a Stranger in a Strange Land, you will grok that some of us wish to hate the others. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
John wrote: Hi HI Dave .. Unfortunately, you may indeed be right. As my posts on this topic speak for themselves, I never once stated either way if it was or was not legal. My question all along has been, did the law against the use of spread spectrum even apply in this case at all, based on what the program actually did, not what was claimed. As I read the FCC rules here in this country, the rule does NOT make a mode illegal because the author claimed it to be spread spectrum. It makes the transmission of spread spectrum signals on the HF amateur bands below 225-250 mhz. This program never did meet the test for making it actually spread spectrum other than the authors claim of it in his own documentation. Indeed, it is likely just a language barrier that is not all that uncommon. A simply translation issue should not really be labeled as egregious. As you imply, we will see how the nay say'ers fair in this. there are indeed those that can't bear to not be the ones in control of the crowd. Me, I really don't care one way or the other, but do prefer that real facts be discussed rather than conjured up arguments based on inapplicable rules. 73 sir Please, don't call me 'sir', in modern day UK, I don't call anyone 'Sir'... That may now be a cultural difference that I have to confront when I visit the Dayton Hamconvention later this year, but few people call other people 'Sir' over here now, unless it's a deference in a shop where a shop assistant is trying to pretend that the customer is King. As in Yes, Sir, what would Sir like? The pin-stripes might suit Sir best You are probably correct in saying that this whole debate was based upon a misunderstanding, but unfortunately that misunderstanding has now grown. Which is why I still suggest that, until it is properly resolved, it is probably off topic and needs its own forum. Regards Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Jose If I am to understand you correctly, the coding algorithms are being held privately. If that is the case, I will have to switch sides and question the legality of it¹s use not only in the US but in many other parts of the world as well. There is a general prohibition of the use of encryption that is not publically accessible. From: jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo.es Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:39:04 + (GMT) To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Hi, KH6. I only i am going to describe in a technicals article how run the mode. If FCC want the code they will have to buy it me, that is obvious. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:31 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, You will have to disclose the algorithm that determines the spreading on ROS (independent of the data), or bandwidth expansion, if that is actually used. You will have to convince technical people that will show your new description to our FCC that your original description was wrong and prove it by revealing your code. I think this is the only way to get the FCC opinion reversed. You now have a difficult task before you, but I wish you success, as ROS is a really fun mode. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Is legal because ROS is a FSK modulation. De: ocypret n5...@arrl.net mailto:n5...@arrl.net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mar,23 febrero, 2010 21:26 Asunto: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
I think this disagreement will continue for some time. Me, I will be firing up in the HF bands in the near future. From: wd4kpd wd4...@suddenlink.net Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:15:50 - To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , ocypret n5...@... wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? it seems to be whatever you want ! david/wd4kpd
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Skip You are over thinking this. The FCC said as they always do that you as a licensee must possess the technical skill to evaluate whether or not a particular mode meets the rules. On Jose¹s part a better technical description and some clarification would be very helpful to this end. I think just looking at the output on a spectrum analyzer would also be quite revealing. From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:03:06 -0500 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, I am only trying to suggest whatever ideas I can to get ROS declared to be legal. You have made such a strong case for FHSS already, that only saying you were mistaken probably will not convince the FCC. They will assume you are only changing the description so ROS appears to be legal and will demand proof that it is not FHSS to change their minds. This is only my personal, unbiased, opinion, as I would like very much for you to succeed. Essentially, you must PROVE that, spreading is NOT accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. How do you do that without disclosing the code? At this point, I doubt that the FCC will believe mere words, because there is so much pressure to allow ROS in HF in this country. Keep in mind the mess that Toyota finds itself by previously denying there is any substantial problem with unattended acceleration or braking of their cars. That may still prove to be true (i.e. not substantial), but the government here is now demanding that Toyota SHOW proof that there is no problem, and not merely saying there is not. This is currently a very hot topic with the government and Congress and on the minds of everyone. So I assume likewise that PROOF will have to be SHOWN that there is no spreading signal used in ROS. Mere words will probably not be enough, and there is probably only ONE chance to succeed, so you need to be successful the first time. If you decide to only change the description and nothing further, I sincerely hope I am wrong, and I could well be. But, that is your decision, not mine. If you need to protect your invention, then just fully document and witness it, or do whatever is necessary in your country and others, and be free to do whatever is required to win this battle. Good luck! 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Hi, KH6. I only i am going to describe in a technicals article how run the mode. If FCC want the code they will have to buy it me, that is obvious. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:31 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, You will have to disclose the algorithm that determines the spreading on ROS (independent of the data), or bandwidth expansion, if that is actually used. You will have to convince technical people that will show your new description to our FCC that your original description was wrong and prove it by revealing your code. I think this is the only way to get the FCC opinion reversed. You now have a difficult task before you, but I wish you success, as ROS is a really fun mode. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Is legal because ROS is a FSK modulation. De: ocypret n5...@arrl.net mailto:n5...@arrl.net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mar,23 febrero, 2010 21:26 Asunto: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not?
[digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
Greetings All, Hmmm . . . with that stated, I guess all US stations should cease Chip64 emissions as it is described using SS, see http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/Chip64.pdf (Note: ARRL) Someone should mention this to the ARRL VA Section NTS as they apparently run a Net using Chip64, see http://aresracesofva.org/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=88Itemid=95 (Also note: ARRL) I have played with the earlier versions in RX and found it fun and interesting, but 2250Hz wide BW in the CW portions of the Bands is a little much. RTTY Tests are rough enough. As was mentioned before by an individual, it is easy for the for bureaucrats/authorities to just say no, especially if they already have a busy day and don't want to say they need more information. 73 GL de Mike KB6WFC
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
I am for whatever will succeed, but do not underestimate how difficult it is to convincingly reverse oneself after first originally being so convincing. For myself, even from the beginning, I could not understand how the spreading was accomplished by a code that everyone else automatically had, but that was the claim, so I accepted it. Perhaps there is no spreading code independent of the data, but if so, it must now be proven thus, and not just claimed in what might be seen as an attempt to have something approved that has already been disapproved. Just because I might possess the necessary technical skills does not mean I can individually overrule the FCC with my actions. Even opposing technical experts are called by both parties in a legal argument, and the judge to decide who is correct in this case is the FCC, which has already issued an opinion, even if it may be wrong if given new information, but just saying it is so does not make it so. I believe some concrete proof is required now, and maybe your spectrum analyzer display can be part of such proof. Other's opinions may vary... 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: Skip You are over thinking this. The FCC said as they always do that you as a licensee must possess the technical skill to evaluate whether or not a particular mode meets the rules. On Jose's part a better technical description and some clarification would be very helpful to this end. I think just looking at the output on a spectrum analyzer would also be quite revealing. *From: *KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net *Reply-To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Date: *Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:03:06 -0500 *To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, I am only trying to suggest whatever ideas I can to get ROS declared to be legal. You have made such a strong case for FHSS already, that only saying you were mistaken probably will not convince the FCC. They will assume you are only changing the description so ROS appears to be legal and will demand proof that it is not FHSS to change their minds. This is only my personal, unbiased, opinion, as I would like very much for you to succeed. Essentially, you must PROVE that, spreading is NOT accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. How do you do that without disclosing the code? At this point, I doubt that the FCC will believe mere words, because there is so much pressure to allow ROS in HF in this country. Keep in mind the mess that Toyota finds itself by previously denying there is any substantial problem with unattended acceleration or braking of their cars. That may still prove to be true (i.e. not substantial), but the government here is now demanding that Toyota SHOW proof that there is no problem, and not merely saying there is not. This is currently a very hot topic with the government and Congress and on the minds of everyone. So I assume likewise that PROOF will have to be SHOWN that there is no spreading signal used in ROS. Mere words will probably not be enough, and there is probably only ONE chance to succeed, so you need to be successful the first time. If you decide to only change the description and nothing further, I sincerely hope I am wrong, and I could well be. But, that is your decision, not mine. If you need to protect your invention, then just fully document and witness it, or do whatever is necessary in your country and others, and be free to do whatever is required to win this battle. Good luck! 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Hi, KH6. I only i am going to describe in a technicals article how run the mode. If FCC want the code they will have to buy it me, that is obvious. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:31 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, You will have to disclose the algorithm that determines the spreading on ROS (independent of the data), or bandwidth expansion, if that is actually used. You will have to convince technical people that will show your new description to our FCC that your original description was wrong and prove it by revealing your code. I think this is the only way to get the FCC opinion reversed. You now have a difficult task before you, but I wish you success, as ROS is a really fun mode. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
[digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
So sorry Dave IN my country, it is still an expression of respect. Here we go with those pesky language barriers again ... HiHi I will try to be more irreverent, condescending, or rude when addressing you in the future . LOL John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@... wrote: John wrote: Hi HI Dave .. Unfortunately, you may indeed be right. As my posts on this topic speak for themselves, I never once stated either way if it was or was not legal. My question all along has been, did the law against the use of spread spectrum even apply in this case at all, based on what the program actually did, not what was claimed. As I read the FCC rules here in this country, the rule does NOT make a mode illegal because the author claimed it to be spread spectrum. It makes the transmission of spread spectrum signals on the HF amateur bands below 225-250 mhz. This program never did meet the test for making it actually spread spectrum other than the authors claim of it in his own documentation. Indeed, it is likely just a language barrier that is not all that uncommon. A simply translation issue should not really be labeled as egregious. As you imply, we will see how the nay say'ers fair in this. there are indeed those that can't bear to not be the ones in control of the crowd. Me, I really don't care one way or the other, but do prefer that real facts be discussed rather than conjured up arguments based on inapplicable rules. 73 sir Please, don't call me 'sir', in modern day UK, I don't call anyone 'Sir'... That may now be a cultural difference that I have to confront when I visit the Dayton Hamconvention later this year, but few people call other people 'Sir' over here now, unless it's a deference in a shop where a shop assistant is trying to pretend that the customer is King. As in Yes, Sir, what would Sir like? The pin-stripes might suit Sir best You are probably correct in saying that this whole debate was based upon a misunderstanding, but unfortunately that misunderstanding has now grown. Which is why I still suggest that, until it is properly resolved, it is probably off topic and needs its own forum. Regards Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
silversmj wrote: I have played with the earlier versions in RX and found it fun and interesting, but 2250Hz wide BW in the CW portions of the Bands is a little much. RTTY Tests are rough enough. As was mentioned before by an individual, it is easy for the for bureaucrats/authorities to just say no, especially if they already have a busy day and don't want to say they need more information. 73 GL de Mike KB6WFC Mi Mike, Not been involved with Chip64, so I cannot comment. However your comments about apparent bandwidth, if we are intending to be good neighbours, is valid, n my opinion. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
The FCC only requires that a technical description be published: Sec. 97.309 RTTY and data emission codes. (a) Where authorized by Sec. Sec. 97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of the part, an amateur station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using the following specified digital codes: (1) The 5-unit, start-stop, International Telegraph Alphabet No. 2, code defined in ITU-T Recommendation F.1, Division C (commonly known as ``Baudot''). (2) The 7-unit code specified in ITU-R Recommendations M.476-5 and M.625-3 (commonly known as ``AMTOR''). (3) The 7-unit, International Alphabet No. 5, code defined in IT--T Recommendation T.50 (commonly known as ``ASCII''). (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications. (b) Where authorized by Sec. Sec. 97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of this part, a station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using an unspecified digital code, except to a station in a country with which the United States does not have an agreement permitting the code to be used. RTTY and data emissions using unspecified digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication. When deemed necessary by a District Director to assure compliance with the FCC Rules, a station must: (1) Cease the transmission using the unspecified digital code; (2) Restrict transmissions of any digital code to the extent instructed; (3) Maintain a record, convertible to the original information, of all digital communications transmitted. [54 FR 25857, June 20, 1989, as amended at 54 FR 39537, Sept. 27, 1989; 56 FR 56172, Nov. 1, 1991; 60 FR 55486, Nov. 1, 1995; 71 FR 25982, May 3, 2006; 71 FR 66465, Nov. 15, 2006] 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jose alberto nieto ros To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 23:39 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Hi, KH6. I only i am going to describe in a technicals article how run the mode. If FCC want the code they will have to buy it me, that is obvious. -- De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:31 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, You will have to disclose the algorithm that determines the spreading on ROS (independent of the data), or bandwidth expansion, if that is actually used. You will have to convince technical people that will show your new description to our FCC that your original description was wrong and prove it by revealing your code. I think this is the only way to get the FCC opinion reversed. You now have a difficult task before you, but I wish you success, as ROS is a really fun mode. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Is legal because ROS is a FSK modulation. De: ocypret n5...@arrl.net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mar,23 febrero, 2010 21:26 Asunto: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Thanks Andy. Good readfinally. The whole issue goes away with the removal of a couple of words and a resubmit by the Author. No one sees SS and unless it's checked BY CHANCE, we can all run ROS contests and shut down RTTY for the weekends now, secure in the knowledge we are clean 'cause nowhere are the words Spread Spectrum mentioned. What? Don't Ask, Don't Tell?? Well, much of this country isn't very transparent in its dealings, no reason why something mundane like Ham Radio needs to be in this country either. Not with some Diplomats Without Portfolio expressing words of pity for the U.S. Ham. We'll just apply a li'l White Out, adapt and overcome and nobody would be the wiser. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV - Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz. So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is. e,g. If I came out with a new mode that was just CW, but claimed it was SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to get any use in the USA. Andy K3UK On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:15 PM, wd4kpd wd4...@suddenlink.net wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, ocypret n5...@... wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? it seems to be whatever you want ! david/wd4kpd
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
That is a Spread Spectrum in all his expression and ¿Chip64 is legal?. Then what are we discuss? De: silversmj silver...@yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 01:46 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response Greetings All, Hmmm . . . with that stated, I guess all US stations should cease Chip64 emissions as it is described using SS, see http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Chip64.pdf (Note: ARRL) Someone should mention this to the ARRL VA Section NTS as they apparently run a Net using Chip64, see http://aresracesofv a.org/index. php?option= com_content view=article id=88Itemid= 95 (Also note: ARRL) I have played with the earlier versions in RX and found it fun and interesting, but 2250Hz wide BW in the CW portions of the Bands is a little much. RTTY Tests are rough enough. As was mentioned before by an individual, it is easy for the for bureaucrats/ authorities to just say no, especially if they already have a busy day and don't want to say they need more information. 73 GL de Mike KB6WFC
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
John wrote: So sorry Dave IN my country, it is still an expression of respect. Here we go with those pesky language barriers again ... HiHi I will try to be more irreverent, condescending, or rude when addressing you in the future . LOL John KE5HAM Please do, I appreciate your more open and honest approach. I remain, as ever, your most obedient and humble servant. You see how it can go? Believe me, English understated condescension of you when we seem to be so very polite is an art form. LOL Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS is Dead on HF for USA Hams
As I previously predicted, an FCC agent has interpreted FCC Rules, saying ROS is Spread Spectrum. ARRL staff have also done the same. In the FCC response to an inquiry initiated by Timothy J. Lilley - N3TL, The FCC Agent 3820 stated this: ROS is viewed as spread spectrum, and the creator of the system describes it as that. We assume that he knows what he created. That statement by FCC Agent 3820 is all any ham in USA needs to know. Use ROS on HF, and you risk fines for breaking the FCC Rules. There is now only 4 options, for USA hams who still want to use ROS on HF bands: 1. Operate ROS... knowing that you are breaking the FCC Rules, and roll the dice, hoping you don't get caught. 2. Go on an uphill battle to change the FCC Rules, and possibly win or lose after a year or more of legal work. 3. When the FCC sends you an enforcement letter Notice of Apparent Liability, and asks you to show cause or risk citation and/or payment of fine, simply tell the FCC please forgive me, I didn't know it is illegal to use Spread Spectrum on HF, and honestly I won't do it again. Several years ago, I started writing about how hams in USA are falling behind in technology due to antiquated FCC rules. I pointed to several excellent modes and methods of operation that USA hams don't have the freedom to use, but hams in most other countries are at liberty to use. This situation is all due to FCC rules that were forged in the 20th century and based upon old methods of using radio. Boxed-in by early limitations, there is no way to think out of the box. Some hams laughed and said: PSK31 and RTTY is all we need; why should we care? Why should we want to use any new modes? Well, USA hams... Welcome to our Technology Jail! Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA 22 Feb 2010, KQ6XA wrote: Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio operators to obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use of ROS on HF without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise, hams will need an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA. Sadly, this may lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams. If ROS Modem had simply provided the technical specifications of the emission, and not called it Spread Spectrum, there would have been a chance for it to be easily adopted by Ham Radio operators in USA. But, the ROS modem designer is rightfully proud of the design, and he lives in a country that is not bound by FCC rules, and probably had little or no knowledge of how his advertising might prevent thousands of hams from using it in USA. But, as they say, You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung. ROS signal can be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other types of n-ary-FSK presently in widespread use by USA hams. The specific algorithms for signal process and format could simply have been documented without calling it Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Since it is a narrowband signal (using the FCC and ITU definitions of narrowband emission = less than 3kHz) within the width of an SSB passband, it does not fit the traditional FHSS description as a conventional wideband technique. It probably would not have been viewed as FHSS under the spirit and intention of the FCC rules. It doesn't hop the VFO frequency. It simply FSKs according to a programmable algorithm, and it meets the infamous 1kHz shift 300 baud rule. http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#307f3 This is a typical example of how outdated the present FCC rules are, keeping USA hams in TECHNOLOGY JAIL while the rest of the world's hams move forward with digital technology. It should come as no surprise that most of the new ham radio digital modes are not being developed in USA! But, for a moment, let's put aside the issue of current FCC prohibition against Spread Spectrum and/or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum, and how it relates to ROS mode. Let's look at bandwidth. There is the other issue of bandwidth that some misguided USA hams have brought up here and in other forums related to ROS. Some superstitious hams seem to erroneously think that there is an over-reaching bandwidth limit in the FCC rules for data/text modes on HF that might indicate what part of the ham band to operate it or not operate it. FACT: There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on HF data/text emission in USA ham bands, except for the sub-band and band edges. FACT: FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on content of the emission, not bandwidth. New SDR radios have the potential to transmit and receive wider bandwidths than the traditional 3kHz SSB passband. We will see a lot more development in this area of technology in the future, and a lot more gray areas of 20th century FCC rules that inhibit
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
I have a different take on this. There are a number of modes that uses vertebrae coding which could be mis-described as spread spectrum by some. The problem with part 97 is that it tries to be as broad as possible where technical parameters are concerned. In this case it causes things to be vague. There are many things that can be described as spread spectrum that are not by definition in part 97. FM would be one of them. Anytime information is transmitted in a wider bandwidth than necessary it could be described as spread spectrum. This would include some low noise modes. The problem is that we petitioned the FCC to loosen SS rules and the more vague those rules are made the more open to debate they are. The worst that can happen under the rules if one would be operating ROS in the phone segment would be an order to cease such operation if the comish so ordered. From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:53:53 -0500 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` I am for whatever will succeed, but do not underestimate how difficult it is to convincingly reverse oneself after first originally being so convincing. For myself, even from the beginning, I could not understand how the spreading was accomplished by a code that everyone else automatically had, but that was the claim, so I accepted it. Perhaps there is no spreading code independent of the data, but if so, it must now be proven thus, and not just claimed in what might be seen as an attempt to have something approved that has already been disapproved. Just because I might possess the necessary technical skills does not mean I can individually overrule the FCC with my actions. Even opposing technical experts are called by both parties in a legal argument, and the judge to decide who is correct in this case is the FCC, which has already issued an opinion, even if it may be wrong if given new information, but just saying it is so does not make it so. I believe some concrete proof is required now, and maybe your spectrum analyzer display can be part of such proof. Other's opinions may vary... 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: Skip You are over thinking this. The FCC said as they always do that you as a licensee must possess the technical skill to evaluate whether or not a particular mode meets the rules. On Jose¹s part a better technical description and some clarification would be very helpful to this end. I think just looking at the output on a spectrum analyzer would also be quite revealing. From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:03:06 -0500 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, I am only trying to suggest whatever ideas I can to get ROS declared to be legal. You have made such a strong case for FHSS already, that only saying you were mistaken probably will not convince the FCC. They will assume you are only changing the description so ROS appears to be legal and will demand proof that it is not FHSS to change their minds. This is only my personal, unbiased, opinion, as I would like very much for you to succeed. Essentially, you must PROVE that, spreading is NOT accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. How do you do that without disclosing the code? At this point, I doubt that the FCC will believe mere words, because there is so much pressure to allow ROS in HF in this country. Keep in mind the mess that Toyota finds itself by previously denying there is any substantial problem with unattended acceleration or braking of their cars. That may still prove to be true (i.e. not substantial), but the government here is now demanding that Toyota SHOW proof that there is no problem, and not merely saying there is not. This is currently a very hot topic with the government and Congress and on the minds of everyone. So I assume likewise that PROOF will have to be SHOWN that there is no spreading signal used in ROS. Mere words will probably not be enough, and there is probably only ONE chance to succeed, so you need to be successful the first time. If you decide to only change the description and nothing further, I sincerely hope I am wrong, and I could well be. But, that is your decision, not mine. If you need to protect your invention, then just fully document and witness it, or do whatever is necessary in your country and others, and be free to do whatever is required to win this battle. Good luck! 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Hi, KH6. I only i am going to describe in a technicals article how run the mode. If FCC want the code they will have to buy it me, that is obvious. De:
[digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
I thought only the old Dinosaur modes used vertebrae coding? Sorry, couldn't resist! K7TMG --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ w...@... wrote: I have a different take on this. There are a number of modes that uses vertebrae coding which could be mis-described as spread spectrum by some.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
Agreed, the more letters to the FCC the more problems for amateur radio. From: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast.net Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:16:22 - To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response If someone sent a letter to the FCC about Chip64 they would get the same response that the FCC gave for ROS. The FCC only gets involved when someone complains. I think that they would love to have simpler and less restrictive rules to enforce. It's the public that opposes the removal of restrictions that they beleive favor their group. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jose alberto nieto ros mailto:nietoro...@yahoo.es To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 01:02 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response That is a Spread Spectrum in all his expression and ¿Chip64 is legal?. Then what are we discuss? De: silversmj silver...@yahoo.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 01:46 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response Greetings All, Hmmm . . . with that stated, I guess all US stations should cease Chip64 emissions as it is described using SS, see http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Chip64.pdf http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/Chip64.pdf (Note: ARRL) Someone should mention this to the ARRL VA Section NTS as they apparently run a Net using Chip64, see http://aresracesofv a.org/index. php?option= com_content view=article id=88Itemid= 95 http://aresracesofva.org/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=88Item id=95 (Also note: ARRL) I have played with the earlier versions in RX and found it fun and interesting, but 2250Hz wide BW in the CW portions of the Bands is a little much. RTTY Tests are rough enough. As was mentioned before by an individual, it is easy for the for bureaucrats/ authorities to just say no, especially if they already have a busy day and don't want to say they need more information. 73 GL de Mike KB6WFC
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
The distinguishing characteristic of spread spectrum is spreading by a code INDEPENDENT of the data. FM for example, creates carriers depending upon the audio frequency and amplitude. SSB creates carriers at a frequency dependent upon the tone frequency, and RTTY at a pair of set frequencirs depending upon the shift or the tones used to generate shift. In spread spectrum, as Jose has written, an independent code is used for the spreading, one of the requirements to classify it as spread spectrum. 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: I have a different take on this. There are a number of modes that uses vertebrae coding which could be mis-described as spread spectrum by some. The problem with part 97 is that it tries to be as broad as possible where technical parameters are concerned. In this case it causes things to be vague. There are many things that can be described as spread spectrum that are not by definition in part 97. FM would be one of them. Anytime information is transmitted in a wider bandwidth than necessary it could be described as spread spectrum. This would include some low noise modes. The problem is that we petitioned the FCC to loosen SS rules and the more vague those rules are made the more open to debate they are. The worst that can happen under the rules if one would be operating ROS in the phone segment would be an order to cease such operation if the comish so ordered. *From: *KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net *Reply-To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Date: *Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:53:53 -0500 *To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` I am for whatever will succeed, but do not underestimate how difficult it is to convincingly reverse oneself after first originally being so convincing. For myself, even from the beginning, I could not understand how the spreading was accomplished by a code that everyone else automatically had, but that was the claim, so I accepted it. Perhaps there is no spreading code independent of the data, but if so, it must now be proven thus, and not just claimed in what might be seen as an attempt to have something approved that has already been disapproved. Just because I might possess the necessary technical skills does not mean I can individually overrule the FCC with my actions. Even opposing technical experts are called by both parties in a legal argument, and the judge to decide who is correct in this case is the FCC, which has already issued an opinion, even if it may be wrong if given new information, but just saying it is so does not make it so. I believe some concrete proof is required now, and maybe your spectrum analyzer display can be part of such proof. Other's opinions may vary... 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: Skip You are over thinking this. The FCC said as they always do that you as a licensee must possess the technical skill to evaluate whether or not a particular mode meets the rules. On Jose's part a better technical description and some clarification would be very helpful to this end. I think just looking at the output on a spectrum analyzer would also be quite revealing. *From: *KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net *Reply-To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Date: *Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:03:06 -0500 *To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, I am only trying to suggest whatever ideas I can to get ROS declared to be legal. You have made such a strong case for FHSS already, that only saying you were mistaken probably will not convince the FCC. They will assume you are only changing the description so ROS appears to be legal and will demand proof that it is not FHSS to change their minds. This is only my personal, unbiased, opinion, as I would like very much for you to succeed. Essentially, you must PROVE that, spreading is NOT accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. How do you do that without disclosing the code? At this point, I doubt that the FCC will believe mere words, because there is so much pressure to allow ROS in HF in this country. Keep in mind the mess that Toyota finds itself by previously denying there is any substantial problem with unattended acceleration or braking of their cars. That may still prove to be true (i.e. not substantial), but the government here is now demanding that Toyota SHOW proof
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
This is very simple. Chip64 is SS, however there is not problems with anybody, because people dont go propagating by all forums hey, is illegal, is illegal I think some people must thing in improve the Ham Radio, instead of want to be noticed from the beginning saying is illegal. From now on, anyone who thinks that ROS is illegal, say to me, because I am going to create a filter that people without autorithation tu use the software. De: W2XJ w...@w2xj.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 02:48 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response Agreed, the more letters to the FCC the more problems for amateur radio. If someone sent a letter to the FCC about Chip64 they would get the same response that the FCC gave for ROS. The FCC only gets involved when someone complains. I think that they would love to have simpler and less restrictive rules to enforce. It's the public that opposes the removal of restrictions that they beleive favor their group. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jose alberto nieto ros mailto:nietorosdj@ yahoo.es To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 01:02 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response That is a Spread Spectrum in all his expression and ¿Chip64 is legal?. Then what are we discuss? De:silversmj silver...@yahoo. com Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 01:46 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response Greetings All, Hmmm . . . with that stated, I guess all US stations should cease Chip64 emissions as it is described using SS, see http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Chip64.pdf http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/techchar/ Chip64.pdf (Note: ARRL) Someone should mention this to the ARRL VA Section NTS as they apparently run a Net using Chip64, see http://aresracesofv a.org/index. php?option= com_content view=article id=88Itemid= 95 http://aresracesofv a.org/index. php?option= com_contentview=articleid=88Itemid=95 (Also note: ARRL) I have played with the earlier versions in RX and found it fun and interesting, but 2250Hz wide BW in the CW portions of the Bands is a little much. RTTY Tests are rough enough. As was mentioned before by an individual, it is easy for the for bureaucrats/ authorities to just say no, especially if they already have a busy day and don't want to say they need more information. 73 GL de Mike KB6WFC From: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast. net Reply-To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:16:22 - To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
[digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
I think I have it working, but haven't heard any signals or tried to contact anyone yet. What works is that if I punch CONNECT the transmitter gets keyed and I can hear signal bursts going out on the sidetone. And I guess I am receiving audio because I'm getting a bunch of garbage on the screen with noise input. Is there a procedure for calling CQ? Or do you have to have a definite call sign you want to connect to? I assume that's what goes in the box that by default contains GTORTOCALL
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
On 02/23/2010 09:00 PM, KH6TY wrote: The distinguishing characteristic of spread spectrum is spreading by a code INDEPENDENT of the data. FM for example, creates carriers depending upon the audio frequency and amplitude. SSB creates carriers at a frequency dependent upon the tone frequency, and RTTY at a pair of set frequencirs depending upon the shift or the tones used to generate shift. In spread spectrum, as Jose has written, an independent code is used for the spreading, one of the requirements to classify it as spread spectrum. One of the requirements - not the single determining characteristic by any means. From a quick look through the fldigi source code, MFSK and Olivia appear to use a pseudo-random code as well, to provide robustness against narrow band interference. From several places in src/include/jalocha/pj_mfsk.h static const uint64_t ScramblingCode = 0xE257E6D0291574ECLL; -- All rights reversed.
[digitalradio] Gtor
I guess I'm hearing a Gtor QSO right now, because every now and then I get a screen message DATA: comp=Huffman, block=1 and that sort of thing. but I also get CONNECT (greek) TO (greek) and DISCONNECT (greek) FROM (greek) never have seen any intelligible text. This is on 3585.5 KHz and has been going on since about 0230Z here in NW Arkansas.
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Convolutional coding and Viterbi decoding may increase the occupied bandwidth but they also decrease the amount of power required to communicate. In some cases, like trellis-coded modulation, the bandwidth stays the same even though the power required decreases by a factor of 2-4. Spread spectrum increases the occupied bandwidth without the decrease in power. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: W2XJ To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 01:24 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` I have a different take on this. There are a number of modes that uses vertebrae coding which could be mis-described as spread spectrum by some. The problem with part 97 is that it tries to be as broad as possible where technical parameters are concerned. In this case it causes things to be vague. There are many things that can be described as spread spectrum that are not by definition in part 97. FM would be one of them. Anytime information is transmitted in a wider bandwidth than necessary it could be described as spread spectrum. This would include some low noise modes. The problem is that we petitioned the FCC to loosen SS rules and the more vague those rules are made the more open to debate they are. The worst that can happen under the rules if one would be operating ROS in the phone segment would be an order to cease such operation if the comish so ordered. -- From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:53:53 -0500 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` I am for whatever will succeed, but do not underestimate how difficult it is to convincingly reverse oneself after first originally being so convincing. For myself, even from the beginning, I could not understand how the spreading was accomplished by a code that everyone else automatically had, but that was the claim, so I accepted it. Perhaps there is no spreading code independent of the data, but if so, it must now be proven thus, and not just claimed in what might be seen as an attempt to have something approved that has already been disapproved. Just because I might possess the necessary technical skills does not mean I can individually overrule the FCC with my actions. Even opposing technical experts are called by both parties in a legal argument, and the judge to decide who is correct in this case is the FCC, which has already issued an opinion, even if it may be wrong if given new information, but just saying it is so does not make it so. I believe some concrete proof is required now, and maybe your spectrum analyzer display can be part of such proof. Other's opinions may vary... 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: Skip You are over thinking this. The FCC said as they always do that you as a licensee must possess the technical skill to evaluate whether or not a particular mode meets the rules. On Jose's part a better technical description and some clarification would be very helpful to this end. I think just looking at the output on a spectrum analyzer would also be quite revealing. From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:03:06 -0500 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, I am only trying to suggest whatever ideas I can to get ROS declared to be legal. You have made such a strong case for FHSS already, that only saying you were mistaken probably will not convince the FCC. They will assume you are only changing the description so ROS appears to be legal and will demand proof that it is not FHSS to change their minds. This is only my personal, unbiased, opinion, as I would like very much for you to succeed. Essentially, you must PROVE that, spreading is NOT accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. How do you do that without disclosing the code? At this point, I doubt that the FCC will believe mere words, because there is so much pressure to allow ROS in HF in this country. Keep in mind the mess that Toyota finds itself by previously denying there is any substantial problem with unattended acceleration or braking of their cars. That may still prove to be true (i.e. not substantial), but the government here is now demanding that Toyota SHOW proof that there is no problem, and not merely saying there is not. This is currently a very hot topic with the government and Congress and on the minds of everyone. So I
Re: [digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
I think I have it figured out. 1. Put the call of the station you want to link with in the box. 2. Press the Connect button. 3. If you are answered, the other station will change your message from Now Sending to Now Receiving when he clicks Changeover. 4. When you want to transmit, type in the text box and press Enter or click Send button. When you Press Changeover, it will go out. ** Important, the person doing the transmitting is the one to hit the Changeover button. What I did to understand what to do is set up two computers and two transceivers and start by pressing Connect so I could see what was happening. The program lacks indicators to tell you the status, unfortunately. When you hit Changeover, nothing may happen for quite a while, but if you are linked, it will change from sending to receiving sooner or later. If you can coordinate by phone with another person at first, that would be helpful to understand what happens on both ends. K7MTG and I had a QSO of over an hour today on 20m and he was only running 3 watts, so the mode works quite well. ** Important, run CheckSR.exe, which you can download from here: http://www.pa-sitrep.com/checksr/CheckSR.exe. Let it run for 15 minutes and then stop it and put the input and output offsets for your soundcard into Gtor. You must calibrate your soundcard like this or it will not decode and you will not know why you cannot link. 73 - Skip KH6TY jhaynesatalumni wrote: I think I have it working, but haven't heard any signals or tried to contact anyone yet. What works is that if I punch CONNECT the transmitter gets keyed and I can hear signal bursts going out on the sidetone. And I guess I am receiving audio because I'm getting a bunch of garbage on the screen with noise input. Is there a procedure for calling CQ? Or do you have to have a definite call sign you want to connect to? I assume that's what goes in the box that by default contains GTORTOCALL
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
It is a NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT requirement (out of three). The point is that if that is not the way the spreading is done in ROS, ROS is NOT spread spectrum. PROVE, not just claim, that it is not, and the battle is won. 73 - Skip KH6TY Rik van Riel wrote: On 02/23/2010 09:00 PM, KH6TY wrote: The distinguishing characteristic of spread spectrum is spreading by a code INDEPENDENT of the data. FM for example, creates carriers depending upon the audio frequency and amplitude. SSB creates carriers at a frequency dependent upon the tone frequency, and RTTY at a pair of set frequencirs depending upon the shift or the tones used to generate shift. In spread spectrum, as Jose has written, an independent code is used for the spreading, one of the requirements to classify it as spread spectrum. One of the requirements - not the single determining characteristic by any means. From a quick look through the fldigi source code, MFSK and Olivia appear to use a pseudo-random code as well, to provide robustness against narrow band interference. From several places in src/include/jalocha/pj_mfsk.h static const uint64_t ScramblingCode = 0xE257E6D0291574ECLL; -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS is Dead on HF for USA Hams
There is now only 4 options, for USA hams who still want to use ROS on HF bands: 1. Operate ROS... knowing that you are breaking the FCC Rules, and roll the dice, hoping you don't get caught. 2. Go on an uphill battle to change the FCC Rules, and possibly win or lose after a year or more of legal work. 3. When the FCC sends you an enforcement letter Notice of Apparent Liability, and asks you to show cause or risk citation and/or payment of fine, simply tell the FCC please forgive me, I didn't know it is illegal to use Spread Spectrum on HF, and honestly I won't do it again. Bonnie, what was the 4th option :) 73 Buddy WB4M Several years ago, I started writing about how hams in USA are falling behind in technology due to antiquated FCC rules. I pointed to several excellent modes and methods of operation that USA hams don't have the freedom to use, but hams in most other countries are at liberty to use. This situation is all due to FCC rules that were forged in the 20th century and based upon old methods of using radio. Boxed-in by early limitations, there is no way to think out of the box. Some hams laughed and said: PSK31 and RTTY is all we need; why should we care? Why should we want to use any new modes? Well, USA hams... Welcome to our Technology Jail! Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Gtor
Try calibrating the sound card. 73 - Skip KH6TY jhaynesatalumni wrote: I guess I'm hearing a Gtor QSO right now, because every now and then I get a screen message DATA: comp=Huffman, block=1 and that sort of thing. but I also get CONNECT (greek) TO (greek) and DISCONNECT (greek) FROM (greek) never have seen any intelligible text. This is on 3585.5 KHz and has been going on since about 0230Z here in NW Arkansas.
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
These modes use interleaving and randomize data values by exclusive-ORing with a pseudorandom binary sequence. The methods are used in most commerial products and the FCC and NSA know how to monitor the signals. The FCCs problem is that the military uses FHSS and DSSS to hide the existance and content of their transmissions thus preventing the monitoring that the FCC is required to do of amateur signals. It took AMRAD a long time to get authorization for SS above 222 MHz. They first had to get experimental licenses for test transmissions and satisfy the FCC that they could monitor the signals. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Rik van Riel To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 02:32 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` On 02/23/2010 09:00 PM, KH6TY wrote: The distinguishing characteristic of spread spectrum is spreading by a code INDEPENDENT of the data. FM for example, creates carriers depending upon the audio frequency and amplitude. SSB creates carriers at a frequency dependent upon the tone frequency, and RTTY at a pair of set frequencirs depending upon the shift or the tones used to generate shift. In spread spectrum, as Jose has written, an independent code is used for the spreading, one of the requirements to classify it as spread spectrum. One of the requirements - not the single determining characteristic by any means. From a quick look through the fldigi source code, MFSK and Olivia appear to use a pseudo-random code as well, to provide robustness against narrow band interference. From several places in src/include/jalocha/pj_mfsk.h static const uint64_t ScramblingCode = 0xE257E6D0291574ECLL; -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
On 02/23/2010 10:22 PM, John B. Stephensen wrote: These modes use interleaving and randomize data values by exclusive-ORing with a pseudorandom binary sequence. The methods are used in most commerial products and the FCC and NSA know how to monitor the signals. However, this does result in carrier placement also being somewhat randomized. Maybe not in exactly the same way as true spread spectrum, since the carrier position is still somewhat dependent on the data content. On the other hand, from the ROS documentation it appears that the carrier location in ROS is also still dependent on data content (as well as a pseudo-random sequence). Carrier location it ROS is, as far as I can tell (Jose will know for sure), dependent on both the data being transmitted and the pseudo-random sequence being used. The FCCs problem is that the military uses FHSS and DSSS to hide the existance and content of their transmissions thus preventing the monitoring that the FCC is required to do of amateur signals. That could be a problem with ROS, as long as the protocol specification is unknown. However, once the protocol has been finalized and the specification made public, monitoring ROS communications will be easy. -- All rights reversed.
[digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
OK, I am starting to agree with Dave now and with Andy as before ... this is starting to now become circular . It has now been solidly established that ROS is FSK, NOT SS, by the authors own words. The author NEVER approached the FCC for an OPINION about his unfinished work at all. Indeed he made it clear the whole thing was still BETA In the US, when has an OPINION of someone lower than the enforcing authority made anything legal or illegal? It was only an opinion of one of the agents (agent #3820) based on the incomplete data provided to them. had I been that agent, I would have said the same thing under the circumstances of only having incomplete, inaccurate documentation presented to me. Jose, the author, has already indicated he intends to correct the error in his updated documentation which should remove all questions about legality in the US. It is not necessary for him to provide anyone with his algorithm so long as he continues to provide his program so that anyone can monitor the transmissions. The transmissions all fall within FCC guidelines already, that has never been argued. The only real argument has been, is it SS or FSK. If it is FSK, it is NOT illegal. The spread spectrum rule simply does not apply here. What more will the outcome of this discussion ultimately determine? Presently, the FCC is so understaffed due to budgetary constraints, my guess is that they really do not have the resources needed to chase such questionable things as this in the first place. Can anyone imagine our enforcement group is going to expend the kind of resources necessary to enforce something that is likely not really an issue in the first place? They are not there just sitting and waiting to jump on anyone potentially violating such a questionable matter in the first place. As for the requirements of how this software generates or does not generate it's spectrum should no longer even be a question since the only reason it was ever argued in the first place was based on the authors misunderstanding of OUR (the US) definition of SS versus FSK. Once he (the program author) understood the difference in that definition, he immediately noted his program was NOT SS at all, but was in fact FSK. Argument should be over? TRUE? NOT TRUE? Dave, where would we go from here . if we were in your country? John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: It is a NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT requirement (out of three). The point is that if that is not the way the spreading is done in ROS, ROS is NOT spread spectrum. PROVE, not just claim, that it is not, and the battle is won. 73 - Skip KH6TY Rik van Riel wrote: On 02/23/2010 09:00 PM, KH6TY wrote: The distinguishing characteristic of spread spectrum is spreading by a code INDEPENDENT of the data. FM for example, creates carriers depending upon the audio frequency and amplitude. SSB creates carriers at a frequency dependent upon the tone frequency, and RTTY at a pair of set frequencirs depending upon the shift or the tones used to generate shift. In spread spectrum, as Jose has written, an independent code is used for the spreading, one of the requirements to classify it as spread spectrum. One of the requirements - not the single determining characteristic by any means. From a quick look through the fldigi source code, MFSK and Olivia appear to use a pseudo-random code as well, to provide robustness against narrow band interference. From several places in src/include/jalocha/pj_mfsk.h static const uint64_t ScramblingCode = 0xE257E6D0291574ECLL; -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS is Dead on HF for USA Hams
F.R. Ashley wrote: Bonnie, what was the 4th option :) I'm half for the use of ROS, half against it, and half bad at fractions! :-) Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
The problem is that he said that ROS uses FHSS in the documentation. If the final version doesn't use FHSS, DSSS or any other form of SS and a technical specification is published the FCC will have no objection. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Rik van Riel To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 03:37 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` On 02/23/2010 10:22 PM, John B. Stephensen wrote: These modes use interleaving and randomize data values by exclusive-ORing with a pseudorandom binary sequence. The methods are used in most commerial products and the FCC and NSA know how to monitor the signals. However, this does result in carrier placement also being somewhat randomized. Maybe not in exactly the same way as true spread spectrum, since the carrier position is still somewhat dependent on the data content. On the other hand, from the ROS documentation it appears that the carrier location in ROS is also still dependent on data content (as well as a pseudo-random sequence). Carrier location it ROS is, as far as I can tell (Jose will know for sure), dependent on both the data being transmitted and the pseudo-random sequence being used. The FCCs problem is that the military uses FHSS and DSSS to hide the existance and content of their transmissions thus preventing the monitoring that the FCC is required to do of amateur signals. That could be a problem with ROS, as long as the protocol specification is unknown. However, once the protocol has been finalized and the specification made public, monitoring ROS communications will be easy. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
On 02/23/2010 10:50 PM, John B. Stephensen wrote: The problem is that he said that ROS uses FHSS in the documentation. If the final version doesn't use FHSS, DSSS or any other form of SS and a technical specification is published the FCC will have no objection. Oh, agreed. For the moment I will not be using ROS because (1) I am not sure whether or not it is SS, (2) I cannot run ROS on my computer (don't have Windows) and (3) the protocol specification is not available. I expect that once the protocol specification is available, and it is clear that ROS is not spread spectrum, I will start using it once there is a free implementation in eg. fldigi. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
In order for amateurs in the U.S. to use any RTTY/data mode other than Baudot, ASCII or AMTOR over 2FSK they must be able to point to a published technical specification for the potocol that shows that it is legal. It was condition that we all agreed to when we were issued a license. When this is done the problem will be solved. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: John To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 03:41 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` OK, I am starting to agree with Dave now and with Andy as before ... this is starting to now become circular . It has now been solidly established that ROS is FSK, NOT SS, by the authors own words. The author NEVER approached the FCC for an OPINION about his unfinished work at all. Indeed he made it clear the whole thing was still BETA In the US, when has an OPINION of someone lower than the enforcing authority made anything legal or illegal? It was only an opinion of one of the agents (agent #3820) based on the incomplete data provided to them. had I been that agent, I would have said the same thing under the circumstances of only having incomplete, inaccurate documentation presented to me. Jose, the author, has already indicated he intends to correct the error in his updated documentation which should remove all questions about legality in the US. It is not necessary for him to provide anyone with his algorithm so long as he continues to provide his program so that anyone can monitor the transmissions. The transmissions all fall within FCC guidelines already, that has never been argued. The only real argument has been, is it SS or FSK. If it is FSK, it is NOT illegal. The spread spectrum rule simply does not apply here. What more will the outcome of this discussion ultimately determine? Presently, the FCC is so understaffed due to budgetary constraints, my guess is that they really do not have the resources needed to chase such questionable things as this in the first place. Can anyone imagine our enforcement group is going to expend the kind of resources necessary to enforce something that is likely not really an issue in the first place? They are not there just sitting and waiting to jump on anyone potentially violating such a questionable matter in the first place. As for the requirements of how this software generates or does not generate it's spectrum should no longer even be a question since the only reason it was ever argued in the first place was based on the authors misunderstanding of OUR (the US) definition of SS versus FSK. Once he (the program author) understood the difference in that definition, he immediately noted his program was NOT SS at all, but was in fact FSK. Argument should be over? TRUE? NOT TRUE? Dave, where would we go from here . if we were in your country? John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: It is a NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT requirement (out of three). The point is that if that is not the way the spreading is done in ROS, ROS is NOT spread spectrum. PROVE, not just claim, that it is not, and the battle is won. 73 - Skip KH6TY
