Re: [digitalradio] NEW NARROWBAND DIGITAL MODE
Andy, I now cannot see the previously seen randomness in the new 500 Hz-wide mode of ROS, so it does not appear to be spread spectrum. In addition, the addition of data now alters the idling carrier frequencies according to the data, because if it did not, it would still fit one of the requirements for spread spectrum. The randomness does still appear in the 2250 Hz-wide mode, either in HF or EME mode, and is not influenced by the sending of data, however, suggesting that mode has not been changed. I would say that the 500 Hz-wide ROS mode is probably legal for US amateurs to use, but the 2250 Hz-wide mode would still only be legal to use over 222 Mhz. Perhaps Steinar can use his superior spectrum analysis software to confirm this. 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: *ROS v2.5.0 Beta* no-re...@wordpress.com mailto:no-re...@wordpress.com Date: Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:42 PM Subject: [New post] NEW NARROWBAND DIGITAL MODE To: k3uka...@gmail.com mailto:k3uka...@gmail.com http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/author/rosmodem/ NEW NARROWBAND DIGITAL MODE http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/new-narrowband-digital-mode/ *José Alberto Nieto Ros http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/author/rosmodem/* | 5 March, 2010 at 03:42 | Categories: Uncategorized http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/ | URL: http://wp.me/pNifC-5R http://wp.me/pNifC-5R I have created a new narrowband digital mode for Ham Radio operators Technical description will be sent to FCC with the aim that they give their approval for this new mode. Add a comment to this post http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/new-narrowband-digital-mode/#respond
[digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS
Laws are laws, whether you like them or not. And, in this particular context, is it actually necessary to go on the air to carry out experiments of this type? As has been mentioned in several posts. there are ionospheric simulators that permit the testing of different modes. The amateur bands are not just an experimenter's playground. They are also used for communication. And communication becomes increasingly difficult when you have a Tower of Babel of different, mutually incompatible modes competing for the same frequencies. There are dozens of data modes that have been developed in the last few years and most now simply lie unused because not enough people were interested in using them to make it possible to have everyday contacts. Would it not be better to make more use of the modes we already have than keep on inventing new ones? I think that before any mode is allowed off the simulator and into general use it should be proven to have benefits not provided by any pre-existing modes, as well as to justify its use of bandwidth. I think there is an argument for setting aside a small section of space for on-air experimentation with unapproved modes. But the situation where existing users of the bands suddenly have their activities disrupted when people start going mad with some flavour of the month new mode is unacceptable, and the controls the FCC exercise over amateurs in the USA do at least go some way to prevent this. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, iv3nwv nico...@... wrote: Of course we need to regulate the access to our bands. But should we need to comply with rules that has been written tens years ago? What forbid us to take on our shoulder the weight of experimenting something more modern than a RTTY technology which is based on what has been experimented almost one century ago? Are we cows? Should we not exploit the knowledges which matured in these last years? Should we be constrained to collect vacuum tube receivers and show them proudly to our retired friends? Should we ignore that a HF channel is a smart object with its delay and doppler spread. What kind of experiments could we do if we are allowed to make experiments which pretend we are still in the '60s? How could we claim that the amateur radio service could bring innovation in communications if we are not allowed to test our ideas?
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia web site
Andy. Do you or anyone know if there is an Olivia DLL that can be used to add Olivia support to a program, in a similar way to the PSK Core DLL made by AE4JY? I know there is one that is used by MixW but I am not sure if it is only for use with that package as I can't find any documentation on how to use it from another program. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: Members of this group that are new to digital mdoes may find this web site useful http://www.oliviamode.com/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS
But the situation where existing users of the bands suddenly have their activities disrupted when people start going mad with some flavour of the month new mode is unacceptable, and the controls the FCC exercise over amateurs in the USA do at least go some way to prevent this. This is why we fought wide band digital on 6 and 2 meters. The idea that a very small number of hams could disrupt entire bands for the mode of week was unacceptable. One reason spark gap and modulated oscillators are illegal is because they too were wide band in places that had only limited space for all users. You have 223 mhz and above use it.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia web site
I don't know of one. Pawel is a member of this group, so perhaps he can chime in on this. To have one avaiable much like the PSK Core that Moe gave the ham world, would be very nice. Andy K3UK On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:27 AM, g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com wrote: Andy. Do you or anyone know if there is an Olivia DLL that can be used to add Olivia support to a program, in a similar way to the PSK Core DLL made by AE4JY? I know there is one that is used by MixW but I am not sure if it is only for use with that package as I can't find any documentation on how to use it from another program. Julian, G4ILO
[digitalradio] Dominoex revisited
It has been a few years since Dominoex was added to our tool box. I still see it on the air from time to time but not on a daily basis. I wonder why it is not used ? http://www.southgatearc.org/news/december2005/domino_ex.htm
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I second the motion
Mark T Egan wrote: Let's continue the experiment in the true spirit of HAM radio. So far no one has tabled an actual piece of legal document stating the legality of the mode. So continue to use the mode until otherwise told. Mark (VK2KLJ) I'm with you Mark, Unfortunately I think that Jose now has to suffer yet more from various directions. This is why I still point out that Jose is one person and the people who have taken against, in one form or another, are a multiple, so don't be surprised if the one seems to be raging against the many at times. Even if Jose seems to raging against you remember that 'you' are now just one amongst many against him. If the roles were reversed, how would 'you' feel against so many people who were, or seemed to be, against you? Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] SDR-Radio Console updated pushed back to March 6-7
Simon Brown is finalising an important update to his SDR-Radio application . It was targeted for release March 5th but the date has been pushed back to March 6 or 7.. Check http://www.sdr-radio.com and click on news for info. \ Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Ping Jockey Status (back-up info)
FYI. -- Forwarded message -- From: Bruce Brackin, N5SIX n5...@bellsouth.net The PJ pages apparently went down last night. Use the nice backup page(s) that Lee, AA1YN has. http://www.aa1yn.com/vhf/vhfregister.html to register and set cookies (like PJ) and then on to the ping chat page. There is also a link to Lee's page on the WSJTGroup home page. Bruce, N5SIX _
Re: [digitalradio] FCC on ROS post on ARRL website!
Dave AA6YQ wrote: However the source of this proof would have to come from someone other than the ROS developer, who now has no credibility with the FCC whatsoever. Is that what the FCC said, or is that just your opinion, Dave? Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] Re: ROS Soundcard select .. missing tx option for usb card
Alan . are 'we' the only stns with this problem ?? .. I dont see whats causing the problem .. I have tried to remove the prog .. by removing the directroy and starting agen .. however the saved info is still retained ... so how to fully remove ?? G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, wa4sca alanbiddl...@... wrote: Just grabbed 2.4.0. Same problem. Of course the FCC says I can't transmit, so it is largely moot, but it would be fun to at least listen in. Alan WA4SCA
Re: [digitalradio] Dominoex revisited
It is in use every Wednesday and Sunday on FM using DominoEX 8. Works great with weak signals and multipath! I think Olivia 16-500 stands up a little better on HF, especially with atmospheric disturbances, but DominoEx 4 is better for FM SSB weak signal work. It is disturbed too much by Doppler effects to use on SSB weak signal. 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: It has been a few years since Dominoex was added to our tool box. I still see it on the air from time to time but not on a daily basis. I wonder why it is not used ? http://www.southgatearc.org/news/december2005/domino_ex.htm http://www.southgatearc.org/news/december2005/domino_ex.htm
[digitalradio] Fabricating FCC approval
Hi all I the past days there has been a fair and square discussion about SS and FCC rules. Maybe some is more Catholic than the pope when it comes to arguing for the FCC rules, but that we have to tolerate . Then a question about credibility comes into issue. It is no longer a question about SS and FCC rules, but IF there was a FABRICATED FCC approval on the web page, then the situation is MUCH more serious. This has taken a whole new turn for me. I don't like this at all. LA5VNA Steinar On 05.03.2010 04:33, Dave AA6YQ wrote: You are in denial, Jose. Anyone here can call (877) 480-3201, ask for Dawn (agent 3820), and hear first-hand that you distorted her response. Since her conversation with you was recorded, there is no doubt about what she told you. Until someone un-does the damage you've done by characterizing ROS as spread spectrum and then fabricating FCC approval on your web page, ROS cannot be used by US amateurs on HF bands. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] ARRL views Chip to not be legal on HF in USA
From the ROS web page (https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=enshva=1#inbox/1272ea080e273b49) , alleging that the ARRL views Chip64 not legal on HF. The language is rather odd though. We read the information and reviewed the CHIP64 information yesterday and have come to the same place as with ROS - it is spread spectrum and isn't legal below 222 MHz. 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 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] Dominoex revisited
--- On Fri, 5/3/10, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: It has been a few years since Dominoex was added to our tool box. I still see it on the air from time to time but not on a daily basis. I wonder why it is not used ? http://www.southgatearc.org/news/december2005/domino_ex.htm I wonder that myself, the mode has a lot going for it. BTW the link for original DominoEX download site in the page above no longer works but Domino is supported in Fldigi at http://www.w1hkj.com/Fldigi.html 73 Trevor M5AKA
[digitalradio] Re:Olivia web site
The trivia question for today WHO was Olivia?? /paul W3FIS
[digitalradio] ROS Author Calls for ARRL Offcial To Resign
From the author of ROS As you know, this mode is being used by ARRL Virginia Section since 5 years ago. Thats means que Dan Henderson recognizes that the ARRL has been committing illegalities: http://aresracesofva.org/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=88Itemid=95 For this reason, I ask the dimission of Dan Henderson, N1ND as manager of the ARRL. This person can not continue to represent the interests of any amateur radio. Their decisions make a mockery of the ARRL at WorlWide. Dan Henderson lies when he said that ARRL supports -- as one of the basic purposes of Amateur Radio -- the experimentation and advancing the technical skills of operators. If he had a minimal interest in experimentation he had contacted first with the author of Mode ROS to clarify the technical description. And he never wanted to answer my email I sent a few days to make this digital mode. The way in which the ARRL thanks to Nino Porcino their work with CHIP64 and their use by the ARRL Virginia Section is saying, after 5 years, that his mode is illegal. Dan Henderson, resigns please
[digitalradio] Re:Olivia trivia
I hope the question is actually who IS rather than who WAS Olivia. Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Paul W. Ross deadgo...@... wrote: The trivia question for today WHO was Olivia?? /paul W3FIS
Re: [digitalradio] Re:Olivia trivia
I believe that Pawel named the Olivia mode in honor of his daughter. 73 - Skip KH6TY obrienaj wrote: I hope the question is actually who IS rather than who WAS Olivia. Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Paul W. Ross deadgo...@... wrote: The trivia question for today WHO was Olivia?? /paul W3FIS
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS
All the ARRL announcement really does is reference the FCC statement of Feb. 23. That statement said the FCC was not going to say if it considered ROS to be spread spectrum. Individual operators were the ones responsible for making a decision. The FCC has never said ROS is illegal nor have the ARRL. I've had a trawl through the FCC site but couldn't find a definition there of what they mean by the words Spread Spectrum and it's their definition that matters not other peoples. If the FCC were concerned about the use of ROS on HF you would have thought they would have written to at least one of the US stations that they had observed using it and informed them of a breach of regulations. I am not aware that they have done so. 73 Trevor M5AKA
[digitalradio] Beta test program for fldigi and companion programs
Beta test program announcement * fldigi / flarq http://www.w1hkj.com/Fldigi.html - digital modem / ARQ file transfer * flwrap http://www.w1hkj.com/Flwrap/index.html - file encapsulation / compression * flics http://www.w1hkj.com/flics-quick-guide/index.html - ICS213 manager, ICS file compression encapsulation * flrig http://www.w1hkj.com/flrig-help/index.html - rig control program, cooperates with fldigi * Beta download page http://www.w1hkj.com/beta.html 73, Dave, W1HKJ from the developers and alpha testers
Re: [digitalradio] ROS update
Amateur radio technology must not advance and we must continue to use only old modes. Make sure we keep ham radio stagnant and only hope commercial businesses move forward and kill our hobby Bob, AA8X . - Original Message - From: Dave Ackrill To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 6:00 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS update KH6TY wrote: Unfortunately, it appears that ROS is actually FHSS, as originally described on the ROS website, and therefore is not legal for US hams below 222MHz. :-( I think that I now no longer care about whether ROS is, or is not, legal in the USA. I see that I am now subject to moderation on here, so my freedom of speech on the subject seems to be curtailed. Strange that, don't you think for those of you that are from the land of free speech, that the moderators, who seem to live in the USA, now want to vet my posts to this group? My previous posts were to give details of the band plans in the UK by reference to the RSGB website. I'm not sure why, but they never were allowed to be posted. I wonder if this will be allowed? Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] What is SS?
Hello All, I have been trying to understand from the very beginning of this circus what the real problem was and where I could read about it, from 3d independant sources. Jose the programmer has done a poor job in pinning down the core of the problem. Here is a reprint that for my limited mental capacities defines the core quite well. I have asked Mike the author for some references, no lack of trust though. In my searches on the internet I had seen pieces directing to Mike's arguments but never connected the dots. After checking with Mike N4QLB, he has been able to hear me on ROS with a couple of hundred mW, he allowed me to post it here. - -Original Message- From: n4qlb n4...@... Sent: Mar 5, 2010 1:15 PM To: rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP] Re: How do you like ROS Now? Thank You for your comments Sig. Let me explain what SS is. Spread spectrum is a method by which a bank of channels (Frequencies)are designated between a Transmitter and Receiver and are shared or (Frequency Hopped) to facilitate a clear Transmisson. The Transmitter actually signals the Receiver to Hop from one frequency to another. A good example is a 900mhz digital cordless telephone or a 800Mhz digital radio truncking system. (Motorla Astro). A frequency in Ham radio consist of a 3kh wide channel. Ros does not signal a receiver to hop outside of that channel (3 Khz) therefore it is not SS and is just like anyother FSK mode used in the amatuer radio service. The ease of obtaining a License in the U.S. by people that are not technically qualified to hold one is the main culprit regarding the controversy over new modes such as ROS. I am confident that all variations of ROS are perfectly legal in the U.S. Mike N4QLB - Hope this is a positive contribution to the ongoing discussions. 73 Rein W6SZ
Re: [digitalradio] Re:Olivia web site
Olivia is my 7 days old daughter ! and not in honor to the radio digital mode...hi hi hi...just a coincidence ;-) 73´s Good DX !! Oscar Lama - CX1CW MSN: oscar_l...@hotmail.com MSN: cx...@hotmail.com RGS#1300 EPC#7536 30MDG#2645 FD#2519 - Original Message - From: Paul W. Ross To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 12:06 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re:Olivia web site The trivia question for today WHO was Olivia?? /paul W3FIS
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia web site
I downloaded Pawel's source code for his text mode demo application and despite not knowing C++ managed eventually to compile and run it under Linux. However I understand that on Windows it must run under CygWin or MinGW which are a kind of Linux emulation. So quite a lot of work would need to be done to make it operate in a way that it could be called from other normal Windows programs. If such a DLL could be made available then I'm sure it would encourage the more widespread use of Olivia mode. I know the PSK Core has had that effect for PSK31. It is still being used in all kinds of applications, the most recent being one to do APRS on HF using PSK63 (APRS Messenger). It is much more robust than 300baud packet. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: I don't know of one. Pawel is a member of this group, so perhaps he can chime in on this. To have one avaiable much like the PSK Core that Moe gave the ham world, would be very nice. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Dominoex revisited
Probably ROS will meet the same fate, even if US hams could use it. This ROS mania is ridiculous, and I think it will go the same way as MFSK, Domino, etc. PSK31 and RTTY will still rule the day. 73 Buddy WB4M It has been a few years since Dominoex was added to our tool box. I still see it on the air from time to time but not on a daily basis. I wonder why it is not used ? http://www.southgatearc.org/news/december2005/domino_ex.htm 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: ARRL views Chip to not be legal on HF in USA
Why, given all that has happened, should one believe anything that is posted on that web site regarding the FCC? As for those trying to justify the developer's behaviour, I don't see it. Peter G3PLX, Nino IZ8BLY and others managed to develop and introduce new modes without any of this kind of thing going on. No-one was against ROS, at least not from the outset. The FCC's initial opinion was a matter of fact, which some of us simply reported upon. Some people, including me, also expressed the view that 2.2KHz is too wide a transmission to have on the crowded HF bands. Whether or not you agree, I think it is a perfectly valid opinion to have without being blacklisted and other childish behaviour. If someone is too thin skinned to take any criticism they should avoid posting anything on the internet. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: From the ROS web page (https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=enshva=1#inbox/1272ea080e273b49) , alleging that the ARRL views Chip64 not legal on HF. The language is rather odd though.
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Soundcard select .. missing tx option for usb card
Did you delete the ROS.ini File in the Windows directoty? -Original Message- From: graham787 g0...@hotmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: 3/5/10 6:37 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Soundcard select .. missing tx option for usb card Alan . are 'we' the only stns with this problem ?? .. I dont see whats causing the problem .. I have tried to remove the prog .. by removing the directroy and starting agen .. however the saved info is still retained ... so how to fully remove ?? G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, wa4sca alanbiddl...@... wrote: Just grabbed 2.4.0. Same problem. Of course the FCC says I can't transmit, so it is largely moot, but it would be fun to at least listen in. Alan WA4SCA
Re: [digitalradio] Re:Olivia trivia
I believe skip is right. Some time ago Simon Brown had answered that question, but he did say he believed Olivia Jalocha was Pavel's daughter. Don KA5DON
[digitalradio] Re: Beta test program for fldigi and companion programs
Thanks Dave, nice additions. Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, w1hkj w1...@... wrote: Beta test program announcement * fldigi / flarq http://www.w1hkj.com/Fldigi.html - digital modem / ARQ file transfer * flwrap http://www.w1hkj.com/Flwrap/index.html - file encapsulation / compression * flics http://www.w1hkj.com/flics-quick-guide/index.html - ICS213 manager, ICS file compression encapsulation * flrig http://www.w1hkj.com/flrig-help/index.html - rig control program, cooperates with fldigi * Beta download page http://www.w1hkj.com/beta.html 73, Dave, W1HKJ from the developers and alpha testers
[digitalradio] Re: Dominoex revisited
Hi Andy, Mo idea, suspect it got lost to many in the mode-maze. I still use it from time to time; efficient, narrow and extremely tolerant of tuning error; works well in FM usage also... 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: It has been a few years since Dominoex was added to our tool box. I still see it on the air from time to time but not on a daily basis. I wonder why it is not used ? http://www.southgatearc.org/news/december2005/domino_ex.htm
Re: [digitalradio] Dominoex revisited
The link on the 2005 Southgate apge should now read: http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/MFSK/DEX.htm 73 Trevor M5AKA --- On Fri, 5/3/10, Trevor . m5...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: From: Trevor . m5...@yahoo.co.uk Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Dominoex revisited To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 5 March, 2010, 13:23 --- On Fri, 5/3/10, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: It has been a few years since Dominoex was added to our tool box. I still see it on the air from time to time but not on a daily basis. I wonder why it is not used ? http://www.southgatearc.org/news/december2005/domino_ex.htm I wonder that myself, the mode has a lot going for it. BTW the link for original DominoEX download site in the page above no longer works but Domino is supported in Fldigi at http://www.w1hkj.com/Fldigi.html 73 Trevor M5AKA
[digitalradio] Re: Olivia trivia
That is my understanding... /paul W3FIS
[digitalradio] Re: IF someone PURPOSELY has tried to mislead me
Someone really should try to find out whether this Jose has a call. Because if he isn't a licensed ham he hasn't much to lose by any trouble he causes. I did try, but failed. But if he has a call, why does he keep it a secret? Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: Bill , I don't know who has assess to this web site, but IF someone PURPOSELY has tried to mislead me and my fellow HAM friends I will be furious. That I will not tolerate at all :( LA5VNA Steinar
RE: [digitalradio] FCC on ROS post on ARRL website!
AA6YQ comments below. From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Ackrill Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 3:14 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC on ROS post on ARRL website! Dave AA6YQ wrote: However the source of this proof would have to come from someone other than the ROS developer, who now has no credibility with the FCC whatsoever. Is that what the FCC said, or is that just your opinion, Dave? My opinion, Dave. My posts have been explicit when attributing comments or positions to FCC personnel. Dave
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS
Hi Trevor. In my opinion, your points are very well taken. It appears to me strange, at best, that an US federal branch is using an hobby club with a membership ratio of some 50 % of the total US population to communicate via thatclub matters of law. Even with the 50 % membership, the percentage of members following the day in and out operations is much lower. I can imagine perhaps one reason that this has not happened, a lack of resources at the Federal Communication Commission though that seems to be unlikely. The FCC has very effective ways to communicate with us, if need be, I am a member of the ARRL and have been that for 40 years. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Trevor . m5...@yahoo.co.uk Sent: Mar 5, 2010 5:13 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS All the ARRL announcement really does is reference the FCC statement of Feb. 23. That statement said the FCC was not going to say if it considered ROS to be spread spectrum. Individual operators were the ones responsible for making a decision. The FCC has never said ROS is illegal nor have the ARRL. I've had a trawl through the FCC site but couldn't find a definition there of what they mean by the words Spread Spectrum and it's their definition that matters not other peoples. If the FCC were concerned about the use of ROS on HF you would have thought they would have written to at least one of the US stations that they had observed using it and informed them of a breach of regulations. I am not aware that they have done so. 73 Trevor M5AKA 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: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS
Julian, thanks for your comments. Yes, laws are laws. Also the Hammurabi rule If a man puts out the eye of an equal, his eye shall be put out was a law but I don't think that it would be of great help in our modern society. I agree with you that simulations should be performed prior to any other on air experiment. I think that this is already a common practice nowadays or at least that nobody interested in a serious development would omit to perform it today. I also agree that amateur bands are not just an experimenter's playground but this implicitly means that they are not exclusive to communicators. If I were an experimenter I would like to see acknowledged my right to make my experiments somewhere in our bands. I would have no interest interfering other users activity, I would just need a portion of the spectrum where me or other amateurs on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean were not considered criminals just because we are validating a model on the field. I don't agree that we should use modes which have already been invented and stop looking for new ones. Research and development in communications and in information theory are everything but dead. Turbo codes were submitted to the attention of the research community just fiftheen years ago, when many had already missed the hope that the Shannon channel capacity could be really approached. Should Berrou, Glavieux and Thitimajshima have made more use of what had been already invented instead of experimenting what had not be done yet? And what about those who dedicated their time inventing new efficient algorithms to decode LDPC (or Gallager's) codes, as David MacKay did few years later? Koetter (unfortunately passed away at a still young age), one of the two researchers who found an algebraic soft decision method to decode better than before the Reed-Solomon codes, as those used in Joe's JT65, published his work in 2003 or so. Should we have stopped our alternatives to knowledge and technologies available in 2002? I don't think so. We should better keep up with news and new modes. Nico, IV3NWV --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, g4ilo jul...@... wrote: Laws are laws, whether you like them or not. And, in this particular context, is it actually necessary to go on the air to carry out experiments of this type? As has been mentioned in several posts. there are ionospheric simulators that permit the testing of different modes. The amateur bands are not just an experimenter's playground. They are also used for communication. And communication becomes increasingly difficult when you have a Tower of Babel of different, mutually incompatible modes competing for the same frequencies. There are dozens of data modes that have been developed in the last few years and most now simply lie unused because not enough people were interested in using them to make it possible to have everyday contacts. Would it not be better to make more use of the modes we already have than keep on inventing new ones? I think that before any mode is allowed off the simulator and into general use it should be proven to have benefits not provided by any pre-existing modes, as well as to justify its use of bandwidth. I think there is an argument for setting aside a small section of space for on-air experimentation with unapproved modes. But the situation where existing users of the bands suddenly have their activities disrupted when people start going mad with some flavour of the month new mode is unacceptable, and the controls the FCC exercise over amateurs in the USA do at least go some way to prevent this. Julian, G4ILO
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
Dave, You make good points, and you've already hugely contributed and continue to contribute to Ham Radio, so I don't mean to question you. But if the FCC agent does not consider us Hams a bunch of squabbling children, I guess we are lucky. We sure look that way to me. I am deeply disappointed about this ROS affair. The major parties in the conflict did not conduct themselves well. As a citizen of the US, it is embarassing the FCC rules don't take bandwidth into account when defining what modes are legal on what bands, and they don't, as you point out, technically define spread spectrum. This probably does not look good to most of the rest of the ham radio world. But given the FCC's statement about each amateur radio operator being responsbile for determining what a mode is and where, therefore, it can be legally operated, I suspect the ham community in the US would have been better off letting each amateur make that determination. I don't think it was wise to immediately contact FCC and ask them, given the givens. This is usually true in every general situation like this, until all the facts can be gathered. At the same time, we have to admit that the author or ROS, similar to FCC's lack of clarity in their rules, has not technically defined ROS very well so far. I hope that changes. Overall, these past weeks have not been amateur radio's finest hours. Jim - K6JM Original Message Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com Date: Thu, March 04, 2010 10:25 am To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com I disagree. We are required to determine whether a mode is legal before using it. The author initially described ROS as being spread spectrum. Part 97 precludes the use of spread spectrum on HF, but gives no clear definition of spread spectrum. The FCC bears responsibility for this lack of clarity, and so cannot blame amateurs who seek their help in determining whether ROS is legal on HF. They do work for us, after all. In my conversation with Dawn (FCC agent 3820), there was not a whiff of why are you guys annoying us with this nonsense?. She wasn't happy about having her words publicly twisted into ROS is legal on HF, though. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of J. Moen Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 1:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) And think real hard next time before calling the FCC. Ham radio was the net loser in this episode. We are already viewed as squabbling children at the FCC, and this type of episode just reinforces that view of amateur radio. AMEN. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Alan Barrow To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 8:06 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) pd4u_dares wrote: ... considering legal action ... has an apparent plan ... may have understandably frustrated Jose I really have mixed feelings about how this all played out as well. While I don't agree with ban lists, I can see where the software author could get very frustrated at what could be perceived as an attempt to get a new mode banned. My observation is that when an arms length ham goes to the ARRL/FCC with an is this legal it nearly always results in a at first glance we do not think so. Historically, this is nearly always done by people opposed to the new mode, and looking to see it banned. Having seen this happen more than once, and having detailed information on two of those cases, it's the wrong way to handle such a query, even if done in good faith. And like most times this occurs, with more detail, and maybe a bit more objective presentation (like making it clear it's ssb bandwidth with an audio sample), the FCC Input is reversed. (it was never a decision, just an opinion based on the facts at hand) In this particular case it's made much worse by the sparse, poor wording in the fcc regs. The issue was not that ROS technically used SS type techniques. Or even could clearly be called SS using the ITU definition. Instead, the core issue was: did ROS behave like traditional SS in a way that would cause interference and thus was banned under 220 mhz. And the answer to that is clearly no. It behaves like many other AFSK'ish modes that use an SSB bandwidth. Other legal modes use randomization in a way that by very strict interpretation could be called SS. Had it hopped across 100khz, using vco rf stages, it'd clearly be illegal. Personally, I think it's unfair to compare to the other authors, as they have
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I second the motion
Dave - I completely disagree with you. You say 'you' are now just one amongst many against him. Most of the folks that Jose has been raging against on this list have actually been trying to help him. 73, Mike, KL7MJ
[digitalradio] Fwd: [wpaNBEMS] Ragchew, 3/6/2010, 11:00 am
-- Forwarded message -- From: wpanb...@yahoogroups.com Date: Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:02 PM Subject: [wpaNBEMS] Ragchew, 3/6/2010, 11:00 am To: wpanb...@yahoogroups.com Reminder from: *wpaNBEMS Yahoo! Grouphttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/wpaNBEMS/cal * Title: Ragchew Date: Saturday March 6, 2010 Time: 11:00 am - 12:00 pm Repeats: This event repeats every week. Next reminder: The next reminder for this event will be sent in 9 hours. Location: 3.5835 USB 8/500 Olivia
[digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
When does the FCC publish that a group of squabling HAM's claimed it was illegal according to agent 3820 of the FCC? Because that is what started it... And why would you advise other HAMS to not use ROS, when this is not based on any HAM radio related argument, and not based on ROS being illegal on the HF band? I don't understand this because I think you are implictly, and maybe unaware of the fact that you are creating a ridiculous polarisation in the digital HAM radio comunity. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, DaveNF2G d...@... wrote: Well, I was going to start using ROS on UHF and maybe occasionally on HF and let the K3UK decision and other chips fall where they might. However, the ARRL just released a statement indicating that the author of the software has lied to the amateur community about the legal status of his program in the USA. Read this if you care: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11377/?nc=1 In view of the foregoing, I will not use ROS in my station. Nor will I recommend that any other ham use it. I will stop short of suggesting that anyone NOT use it (at least on UHF where it is legal here in the USA). 73 de Dave, NF2G
[digitalradio] Re: ROS operating frequencies on 20m
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, g4ilo jul...@... wrote: .. Well I guess now it's immaterial to you guys anyway. What I don't understand is why anyone still wants to use the mode. The developer has made threats to other amateurs, he has posted false information on his website and risked bringing the hobby into disrepute. Anyone who continues to use it is basically saying none of that matters. PSE don't start this hypocracy again Julian. And if so, state the complete context. All wouldn't have happened if it was not claimed by some that ROS is illegaal in the US. Since there is no official publication on this by the FCC, ROS is neither legal nor illegal. So the first claim by some users of ROS was in error. Jose's subsequent claiom too. Threaths of the programmer of ROS to exclude users were as much not in line with the ham radio spirit as stopping support by user on their HAM radio chat room. It is clear that you don't want to use ROS anymore. And pse don't reply that you do, but are banned. If you want to continue bashing ROS, pse use your own website for that purpose, and not this digital radio group. Because this group is not intended for this , and bashing is not in line with the HAM radio spirit. Marc Marc
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
AA6YQ comments below From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of J. Moen Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 10:11 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) Dave, You make good points, and you've already hugely contributed and continue to contribute to Ham Radio, so I don't mean to question you. The fact that I write free software for the amateur community doesn’t mean my posts are beyond question. I make mistakes just like everyone else does, and don’t mind being called on them. But if the FCC agent does not consider us Hams a bunch of squabbling children, I guess we are lucky. We sure look that way to me. I am deeply disappointed about this ROS affair. The major parties in the conflict did not conduct themselves well. As a citizen of the US, it is embarassing the FCC rules don't take bandwidth into account when defining what modes are legal on what bands, and they don't, as you point out, technically define spread spectrum. This probably does not look good to most of the rest of the ham radio world. But given the FCC's statement about each amateur radio operator being responsbile for determining what a mode is and where, therefore, it can be legally operated, I suspect the ham community in the US would have been better off letting each amateur make that determination. I don't think it was wise to immediately contact FCC and ask them, given the givens. This is usually true in every general situation like this, until all the facts can be gathered. At the same time, we have to admit that the author or ROS, similar to FCC's lack of clarity in their rules, has not technically defined ROS very well so far. I hope that changes. Overall, these past weeks have not been amateur radio's finest hours. It has been a bit of a perfect storm: attractive new mode, described as spread spectrum by its developer, US hams unable to use spread spectrum on HF, but no clear definition of what constitutes spread spectrum. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS
The FCC is very slow to respond to anything related amateur radio. In other words we're a very minor player in the scheme of things. I for one will refrain from using ROS below 222Mhz until it is approved because my license is more valuable to me . Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that my friends in mine..73, Alan --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Trevor . m5...@... wrote: All the ARRL announcement really does is reference the FCC statement of Feb. 23. That statement said the FCC was not going to say if it considered ROS to be spread spectrum. Individual operators were the ones responsible for making a decision. The FCC has never said ROS is illegal nor have the ARRL. I've had a trawl through the FCC site but couldn't find a definition there of what they mean by the words Spread Spectrum and it's their definition that matters not other peoples. If the FCC were concerned about the use of ROS on HF you would have thought they would have written to at least one of the US stations that they had observed using it and informed them of a breach of regulations. I am not aware that they have done so. 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS operating frequencies on 20m
On 03/04/2010 07:44 AM, g4ilo wrote: I thought you were in Region 2. I have the Region 2 band plan in front of me right off the IARU site and it definitely says All Modes in all of the sections right up to 14.350. I don't see any division at 14.150 at all. In any case, I don't think you'd need to go as far even as 14.150 to find a frequency that hasn't been designated for use by some other modes. The US band plans are a little more restrictive than the Region 2 plan. I do not know why that was done, but it does give the smaller countries some empty frequencies so it seems to be beneficial overall. The US probably has more hams than the other Region 2 countries together. -- All rights reversed.
RE: [digitalradio] What is SS?
Mike N4QLB's claims that A frequency in Ham radio consist of a 3kh wide channel. Ros does not signal a receiver to hop outside of that channel (3 Khz) therefore it is not SS and is just like anyother FSK mode used in the amatuer radio service. are incorrect, in my opinion. Amateur radio frequencies on HF bands are not channelized at 3 khz or any other bandwidth (with the exception of 60m). I have asked Mike to cite justification for his claim on the ROS reflector that spreading a ~50 hz signal across 3 khz using classic spread spectrum techniques (e.g. a pseudo-random sequence) isn't spread spectrum. 73, Dave, AA6YQ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rein A Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 3:16 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] What is SS? Hello All, I have been trying to understand from the very beginning of this circus what the real problem was and where I could read about it, from 3d independant sources. Jose the programmer has done a poor job in pinning down the core of the problem. Here is a reprint that for my limited mental capacities defines the core quite well. I have asked Mike the author for some references, no lack of trust though. In my searches on the internet I had seen pieces directing to Mike's arguments but never connected the dots. After checking with Mike N4QLB, he has been able to hear me on ROS with a couple of hundred mW, he allowed me to post it here. - -Original Message- From: n4qlb n4...@... Sent: Mar 5, 2010 1:15 PM To: rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com mailto:ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP] Re: How do you like ROS Now? Thank You for your comments Sig. Let me explain what SS is. Spread spectrum is a method by which a bank of channels (Frequencies)are designated between a Transmitter and Receiver and are shared or (Frequency Hopped) to facilitate a clear Transmisson. The Transmitter actually signals the Receiver to Hop from one frequency to another. A good example is a 900mhz digital cordless telephone or a 800Mhz digital radio truncking system. (Motorla Astro). A frequency in Ham radio consist of a 3kh wide channel. Ros does not signal a receiver to hop outside of that channel (3 Khz) therefore it is not SS and is just like anyother FSK mode used in the amatuer radio service. The ease of obtaining a License in the U.S. by people that are not technically qualified to hold one is the main culprit regarding the controversy over new modes such as ROS. I am confident that all variations of ROS are perfectly legal in the U.S. Mike N4QLB -- Hope this is a positive contribution to the ongoing discussions. 73 Rein W6SZ
[digitalradio] ROS controversy
Andy, since you have chosen to moderate very specific posts to slant the discussion in favor of your own agenda, and that of several prominent other frequent posters, this reflector has become effectively useless to me. It is unfortunate that it comes to this. I know you do not care who you lose and that is quite alright. Certain members of your group have a specific agenda and it is not necessarily in the best interest of ham radio. The word characterization has been used recently by at least on of them. Yet this same individual seems to have no problem whatsoever using mis-characterizations himself to further his own agenda. This entire drama was primarily generated by Skip, and his own desire to be the authority, yet he consistently ignores certain facts that have been brought up by numerous other posters, including myself. You do not need to concern yourself with moderating my posts any further to protect your agenda. I am outta here 73 John KE5HAM
Re: [digitalradio] ROS controversy
Good riddance! 73 - Skip KH6TY John wrote: Andy, since you have chosen to moderate very specific posts to slant the discussion in favor of your own agenda, and that of several prominent other frequent posters, this reflector has become effectively useless to me. It is unfortunate that it comes to this. I know you do not care who you lose and that is quite alright. Certain members of your group have a specific agenda and it is not necessarily in the best interest of ham radio. The word characterization has been used recently by at least on of them. Yet this same individual seems to have no problem whatsoever using mis-characterizations himself to further his own agenda. This entire drama was primarily generated by Skip, and his own desire to be the authority, yet he consistently ignores certain facts that have been brought up by numerous other posters, including myself. You do not need to concern yourself with moderating my posts any further to protect your agenda. I am outta here 73 John KE5HAM
Re: [digitalradio] ROS controversy
Are you on a witch hunt, John? I did nothing but analyze ROS with FSK and present the findings to this group. On the basis of the ROS emissions, all other facts brought up here that you allude to are irrelevant. The signature of the ROS mode clearly fits the definition of Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum as originally documented by the author and easily found in literature or the Wikipedia. A technical description can always be rewritten to suit an agenda, as we can see, but the truth lies only in what is transmitted and how it is transmitted. That is all the FCC cares about, and we as hams are held responsible for emissions that comply with the FCC regulations, whether or not we like them. The authority is not myself, but the FCC regulations as they currently stand. If you don't like them, then petition to have them changed instead of trying to blame me instead of the author, who correctly described ROS as FHSS at the outset, which mode's emission signature clearly shows is true: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/compare.zip 73 - Skip KH6TY John wrote: Andy, since you have chosen to moderate very specific posts to slant the discussion in favor of your own agenda, and that of several prominent other frequent posters, this reflector has become effectively useless to me. It is unfortunate that it comes to this. I know you do not care who you lose and that is quite alright. Certain members of your group have a specific agenda and it is not necessarily in the best interest of ham radio. The word characterization has been used recently by at least on of them. Yet this same individual seems to have no problem whatsoever using mis-characterizations himself to further his own agenda. This entire drama was primarily generated by Skip, and his own desire to be the authority, yet he consistently ignores certain facts that have been brought up by numerous other posters, including myself. You do not need to concern yourself with moderating my posts any further to protect your agenda. I am outta here 73 John KE5HAM
