[digitalradio] Ros Use in US ( Urgent )

[Rein A]

Hello All,

Mr. Ros has just corrected the statement on the official ROS Modem
Website regarding ROS use in USA:


The FCC allows ROS to be used in the USA
13 August, 2010 by José Alberto Nieto Ros
 
”  The  FCC  allows  ROS to  be used in the USA”
only by WE9XLQ 
Making up  for  lost  ground , showing impressive
coverage on the  first day of  ROS HF   later
ROS -MF covers  5700 miles to LU with  ease.

Thank you Jose. 

We do not want to make your case more complicated then it already is.

73 Rein W6SZ
 

[digitalradio] Using ROS URGENT

[Rein A]

Hello All

Mr. ROS is making another big mistake by spreading misinformation.

4 Weeks ago I applied for an Experimental license to do comparison
measurements in terms of sensitivities of QRP transmissions.

Yesterday I received the grand for a LIMITED time. 

   "EXPERIMENTAL SPECIAL TEMPORARY AUTHORIZATION"

CLASS of Station XD FX

EMISSION Designator SK25J2D 

Experition 3:00 AM EST Jan 31 2011.

Call Sign WE9XLQ

Furthermore the transmissions made on 500 kHZ as mentioned by Mr. ROS
were not from WE9XLQ.

This is another case were Mr ROS does a great disservice to the
radio amateur Community.

I want Mr. ROS to correct the information that he just released.

73 Rein W6SZ  

[digitalradio] New question

[Rein A]

Noticed this statement in a report of an exchange with a custom
agent at FCC:

"ROS is not "Spread Spectrum" because the 3khz HF standard channel is
maintained. Other modes like MT63, Olivia o[r] Contestia use similar
techniques."

I do not know who wrote it.

What is the problem with it?

73 Rein W6SZ

[digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

[Rein A]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for responding in spite of everything!

"The FCC then made their own analysis and concluded it was not FSK but truly 
spread spectrum. This was communicated to us by the ARRL as is usually the 
case."

( I know this may cost me my license if I have to believe some
contributors here. )

I have just big problems with this statement. You will not help
me getting to the bottom of this  A couple of months ago I emailed and
asked friendly the person, that could have answered me ( Absolutely
sure on this ) to allow me to ask a few questions ( did not mention the ROS 
subject )

Also, I just can't buy your statement that the FCC communicates
via ARRL. ( But is has no bearing on this )

I did not notice  or missed an answer for whatever reason.

I got the name an email address from lets say a person that knows
Washington and he wrote me that since President Obama is in office
e-mail is used a lot...

I really do not want to go into details. If you like to know I can
supply you the details off this board.

I am not addressing the no-reply result. The person in question 
could receive 100's of messages a day. And I was too polite and did
not state a subject.

I click some 250 messages away every day here and sometimes make 
mistakes in clicking an important one.


Not stating the real subject might have caused this, could be. Mot
blaming anybody just myself, for wasting an potential opportunity.

The time of this person is valuable.

73 Rein W6SZ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY  wrote:
>
> Rein,
> 
> I said I would not comment further on ROS, but look at it in 
> perspective. The author defined ROS as spread spectrum and produced a 
> two page document to that effect. He is the only one who knows for sure 
> if it is spread spectrum or not.
> 
> When it was posted that spread spectrum was not legal below 222 Mhz, he 
> conveniently (for his benefit) tried to redefine ROS as FSK, in an 
> apparent attempt to change the FCC opinion, which originally was based 
> on his own two-page declaration, which he wanted us to believe.
> 
> The FCC then made their own analysis and concluded it was not FSK but 
> truly spread spectrum. This was communicated to us by the ARRL as is 
> usually the case.
> 
> The author, if he would have disclosed his code, could have  proven 
> whether or not  the  randomization is for spread spectrum purposes or 
> for some other reason, but he steadfastly refused to disclose the code, 
> which would either have resulted in it being OK for us to use, or prove 
> it was truly FHSS. Perhaps he decided to try and bluff the FCC because 
> it would be determined, on the basis of his code, to really be FHSS, in 
> agreement with his first description, and in disagreement with the 
> second description he wrote, obviously just to try to get approval.
> 
> It is just not reasonable to think that a person of his ability, as the 
> author of the software, could make such a huge mistake in his first 
> characterization of
> ROS as spread spectrum and then completely revise the characterization 
> as something else which he knew would be usable by US hams.
> 
> You can imagine how the FCC feels about that attempted deception, and to 
> top it off, he posts a phoney statement of FCC approval besides! I 
> seriously doubt that the FCC is going to want to revisit the question, 
> since the author simply cannot be believed. I met Dan Henderson at a 
> hamfest right after all this happened and he had been in contact the 
> FCC, and opined that it was highly doubtful that any further 
> reconsideration would be done.
> 
> The ONLY way for us to ever use ROS on HF is to petition the FCC to 
> amend the rules to allow limited spread spectrum below 222 Mhz, citing 
> enough good reasons why it will not harm existing operations of lesser 
> bandwidth.
> 
> Instead of constantly arguing that the FCC made a mistake, or we should 
> interpret the rules as we wish they were, I suggest that either a 
> petition be filed, or the code released to prove the author's contention 
> that it is not spread spectrum. Of course the submitted code would have 
> to be recompiled and tested to prove it is really the original code, and 
> another attempted deception by the author.
> 
> Understand that I am NOT "against" ROS, and never have been, even though 
> I strongly dislike the author's behavior and suspect his motives. I 
> would keep using it on HF if it were legal for me to do so. I do respect 
> the FCC regulations, even those that I do not like, and follow them as 
> best I can, because in the overall picture, they protect the weak from 
> the strong for the benefit of everyone, until revised in a non-harmful way.
> 
> This will be my (final) final word on this subject, so please do not ask 
> me to comment any further.
> 
> If you want to use ROS on HF, then enter a petition to get the 
> regulations changed so you can, or work with someone else who will do 
> that for you, and end this endless

[digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

[Rein A]

Hello Alan,

Thank you much for your reply.

To tell the truth, I did not subscribe  to this group in those
beginning days ( posted only om ROSMODEM )

It is so sad, that because of the noise, anti ROS biases, agenda's intelligent 
exchanges are just about impossible, pro and con.
( IMHO )

Every tine I think to understand why ROS is illegal a couple of days
later, I am getting confused.

-Bandwidth.
-The real properties of FHSS
-Is WSJT FHSS?" Why , why not.
-Why is WSJT65C legal ( just a rhetorical question )
-Is wide band Oliv1a FHSS Why, why not.
-Being in public domain.
-Specs published.
-FCC and others able to monitor content.
-ROS transmitted signals not the same from one transmission to 
another for same message
-ROS transmitting while idling
-Oversold by am young(?) software engineer not being familiar with US rules.  
Just to name a few.

It is of course because of my limited intelligence, that is clear

73 Rein W6SZ

  
> worse than a narrower mode is flawed. Otherwise we'd all be using RTTY.
> FEC increases bandwidth for the same data rate, but the trade off
> surfaces over sustained measurement in real (difficult) HF conditions.
> Skip's work did show there was not a big win for ROS, so we arrived at
> the right spot. But many were banning just because it was wider than
> their favorite mode!
> 
> - Lack of consideration that multiple SS signals could occupy the same
> spectrum, effectively decreasing the total required bandwidth. There is
> a point of diminishing returns, and ROS may not fare well. But if I
> could stack a dozen or more data signals simultaneously in a single SSB
> width slot, would that be a bad thing? Or what if a AF type SS (AFSS?)
> mode could live on a non-interference basis, should it be banned just
> because it was technically SS? No testing was done that I'm aware of
> that would have allowed real world throughput to be measured with
> multiple signals on the same channel. This is one of the big wins of DSSS!
> 
> - Assumption that the current FCC reg is the end all. It was accurate
> for state of the art when added. But no one foresaw that DSP's would
> allow an audio based SS implementation inside a SSB bandwidth. The FCC
> reg was written to address the then current DSSS modems which used
> spreading factors of 100x with direct IF injection, etc. And are totally
> inappropriate for HF usage. Put another way, most professional RF
> engineers would consider any audio based scheme to not be DSSS as it's
> just not how it's done. Pretty much all real world DSSS systems use IF
> level modulation to the point that it's one of the main identifying
> characteristics.
> 
> - Very inappropriate involvement of the FCC. This is absolutely not the
> way to approach a new mode, the answer is nearly always "check the regs".
> 
> One thing we can probably all agree on is that ROS is pretty much dead
> for consideration in the US. The waters are too muddied at this point.
> 
> I'm more concerned about impact to the next innovation.
> 
> And the fact that all the noise & behavior set aside, the author did
> implement something new that should have been evaluated on it's merits
> before declared illegal via trial by yahoogroup. (Before he hastened
> it's demise due to his own unprofessional behavior).
> 
> Personally, this episode just cements my believe that the US will be
> trapped using legacy modes & arcane restrictions for the most part until
> some form of bandwidth based bandplan approach is implemented like much
> of the civilized world.
> 
> Lest we crow about some of the more recent innovations, we have to
> factor in that rtty still rules the airwaves from a number of users and
> usage perspective.
> 
> And it's about as inefficient a mode we could come up with when impact
> to the spectrum is factored in. (medium power, wide sidebands, single
> user per channel, etc). Call me when there is a weekend with as many PSK
> signals on the air as one of the (too frequent) RTTY contests.
> 
> I'm not opposed to RTTY, exactly the opposite. But it's the RTTY centric
> regs that hamper our development. Even things like P3 & winmor are
> having to go the long way around to maximize performance while not
> running afoul of the arcane RTTY based regs. (Much less use of tech like
> the FS-1052 modems, etc)
> 
> Have fun,
> 
> Alan
> km4ba
>

[digitalradio] Regulations

[Rein A]

"  and/or we can campaign to change them. "

Amen

73 Rein W6SZ

[digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?

[Rein A]

Greg is using ROS. I have logged him.

Of course he is living in the North West far away from the  government.
And Graig,  I did not suggest an nice older person to go and ask.
That were others who wanted it to die.

73 Rein W6sz

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
> Hear, hear
> 
> rgrds
> Craig
> kq6i 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: AA0OI [mailto:aa...@...] 
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:52 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
> 
> 
> 
> HI:
>  I Just have one question... HOW THE HELL OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE ?!!  Grow Up, 
> and let it die..You have all stabbed it
> enought to kill it 20 times over..
> The only problem with this mode is that you all have to run and ask Uncle FCC 
> "what do we do , what do we do ?"
> If everyone would just shut the hell up and use the mode and not whine like a 
> 12 year old girl,  the FCC would not even
> know that it existed or EVEN CARE !!
> Ham Radio is AMATEUR RADIO--- NOT PROFESSIONAL...Some of its use is for 
> EXPERIMENTATION  (if not we'd all be using
> spark-gap radios today  !!!
> So THANKS for screwing ROS up for the rest of us that don't need Big Brothers 
> permission to pee in the night..
> And next time a new mode comes out... PLEASE just stay the hell away from it 
> and go do something like PSK31or something
> else that you already have Permission to use from Uncle Government !!
> "Its better to ask forgiveness,, because you'll never get permission"  and 
> American : Thomas Jefferson
> 
>  
> Garrett / AA0OI  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: "rein...@..." 
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 2:52:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
> 
>   
> 
> 
> Skip,
> 
> I have a lot of respect for you and appreciated every time you emailed me. 
> Honest.
> 
> Went yesterday through all messages on ROSMODEM and got the idea of some anti 
> biases built in here and there. Almost
> from day in.
> 
> You have numerous messages about US ROS use and I sense it. Sure I have a 
> bias the other way, difference though, ROS is
> not my program.
> Even more interesting as far as Jose goes I might be his biggest enemy in the 
> universe.
> 
> 73 Rein W6SZ
> 
> -Original Message-
> >From: KH6TY mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net> >
> >Sent: Jul 12, 2010 3:04 PM
> >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
> >
> >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
> >
> >No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with 
> >the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, 
> >which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would 
> >accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the 
> >FCC is not that gullible!
> >
> >The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a 
> >petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do.
> >
> >This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested 
> >in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of 
> >a false FCC approval.
> >
> >I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply 
> >any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit 
> >orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front 
> >of this computer.
> >
> >I hope you understand...
> >
> >73, Skip KH6TY SK
> >
> >On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote:
> >>
> >> That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask 
> >> evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be 
> >> allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available.
> >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836
> >>
> >> Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by 
> >> some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern 
> >> technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt 
> >> digital noise reduction to hf/vhf data modes will stall
> >>
> >> I note interest in adding the mode to existing software was expressed 
> >> at a early point in the proceedings ,those asking could see the 
> >> advantage first hand . (may of been a Homer S DH moment) it looks 
> >> however now, if this is perhaps not feasible , there is a DDS 
> >> interface port , but this only connects the MF mode and is in use in 
> >> France on 137k ,BW issues? MF takes 98 Hz
> >>
> >> I think Andy is right , some one needs to address the log jam your 
> >> side of the pond , this not a issue of a local by law , its a cap on 
> >> technical development , even stone tablets can be recycled these days...
> >>
> >> G ..
> >>
> >> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
> >> 
> >> , KH6TY  wrote:
> >

[digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?

[Rein A]

Greg is using ROS. I have logged him.

Of course he is living in the North West far away from the  government.
And Graig,  I did not suggest an nice older person to go and ask.
That were others who wanted it to die.

73 Rein W6sz

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
> Hear, hear
> 
> rgrds
> Craig
> kq6i 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: AA0OI [mailto:aa...@...] 
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:52 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
> 
> 
> 
> HI:
>  I Just have one question... HOW THE HELL OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE ?!!  Grow Up, 
> and let it die..You have all stabbed it
> enought to kill it 20 times over..
> The only problem with this mode is that you all have to run and ask Uncle FCC 
> "what do we do , what do we do ?"
> If everyone would just shut the hell up and use the mode and not whine like a 
> 12 year old girl,  the FCC would not even
> know that it existed or EVEN CARE !!
> Ham Radio is AMATEUR RADIO--- NOT PROFESSIONAL...Some of its use is for 
> EXPERIMENTATION  (if not we'd all be using
> spark-gap radios today  !!!
> So THANKS for screwing ROS up for the rest of us that don't need Big Brothers 
> permission to pee in the night..
> And next time a new mode comes out... PLEASE just stay the hell away from it 
> and go do something like PSK31or something
> else that you already have Permission to use from Uncle Government !!
> "Its better to ask forgiveness,, because you'll never get permission"  and 
> American : Thomas Jefferson
> 
>  
> Garrett / AA0OI  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: "rein...@..." 
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 2:52:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
> 
>   
> 
> 
> Skip,
> 
> I have a lot of respect for you and appreciated every time you emailed me. 
> Honest.
> 
> Went yesterday through all messages on ROSMODEM and got the idea of some anti 
> biases built in here and there. Almost
> from day in.
> 
> You have numerous messages about US ROS use and I sense it. Sure I have a 
> bias the other way, difference though, ROS is
> not my program.
> Even more interesting as far as Jose goes I might be his biggest enemy in the 
> universe.
> 
> 73 Rein W6SZ
> 
> -Original Message-
> >From: KH6TY mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net> >
> >Sent: Jul 12, 2010 3:04 PM
> >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
> >
> >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
> >
> >No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with 
> >the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, 
> >which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would 
> >accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the 
> >FCC is not that gullible!
> >
> >The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a 
> >petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do.
> >
> >This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested 
> >in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of 
> >a false FCC approval.
> >
> >I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply 
> >any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit 
> >orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front 
> >of this computer.
> >
> >I hope you understand...
> >
> >73, Skip KH6TY SK
> >
> >On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote:
> >>
> >> That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask 
> >> evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be 
> >> allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available.
> >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836
> >>
> >> Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by 
> >> some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern 
> >> technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt 
> >> digital noise reduction to hf/vhf data modes will stall
> >>
> >> I note interest in adding the mode to existing software was expressed 
> >> at a early point in the proceedings ,those asking could see the 
> >> advantage first hand . (may of been a Homer S DH moment) it looks 
> >> however now, if this is perhaps not feasible , there is a DDS 
> >> interface port , but this only connects the MF mode and is in use in 
> >> France on 137k ,BW issues? MF takes 98 Hz
> >>
> >> I think Andy is right , some one needs to address the log jam your 
> >> side of the pond , this not a issue of a local by law , its a cap on 
> >> technical development , even stone tablets can be recycled these days...
> >>
> >> G ..
> >>
> >> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
> >> 
> >> , KH6TY  wrote:
> >

[digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

[Rein A]

Hi Skip,

I like to see this ruling revisited by technical personal
within the FCC. The FCC, not ARRL.  That's all.

Mr. Dan Henderson is a paid lawyer ( unusual for ARRL officials )
Enough said here. He is a liaison person for  among other organizations, the 
FCC.
He communicates, does not ask questions

I do not think and did not think the day it was made,  it was
done by the right person(s). What is "Is is up to the people etc
we don't rule on the mode or its content/operation?"

You and others here promoted the decision as in concrete. I think
you and others like it to be so ( just an opinion )

All the stupidity of Jose and now this cluster thing make
revisiting harder and harder, if not impossible indeed.

If the few of us here who are interested to use ROS had been
united and not scared by the please lets move on crowd we could
have been able to at least reconsider the situation.

Therefore we all should force Jose to fix this and the users 
outside the US should stop using it. Of course they are mot reading
this or even part from this group.

Clear and simple

73 Rein W6SZ

 

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY  wrote:
>
> It was not my idea. The author wanted the FCC to say it was not spread 
> spectrum. Unfortunately for all of us in the US, it is spread spectrum, 
> and the FCC rules do not allow that below 222 MHz.
> 
> I am not potentially damaging the hobby as a whole, just posting what I 
> know.
> 
> Go ahead and use ROS if you think you will be legal! You will do more 
> damage to the hobby than anyone who refuses to use it, by flaunting the 
> regulations.
> 
> 73, Skip KH6TY.
> 
> On 7/12/2010 1:52 PM, W2XJ wrote:
> >
> > Why do you persist in getting the FCC involved?  You are potentially 
> > damaging the hobby as a whole. If one is qualified to hold a license 
> > the FCC presumes ones ability to determine what operations are legal.
> >
> >
> > On 7/12/10 1:28 PM, "KH6TY" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lester,
> > The "inventor" has shown over and over that he is not to be
> > trusted, and so his block diagram would not be believed either. I
> > suggested months ago to him to just send his code in confidence to
> > the FCC, which they would keep private, and be done with it. He
> > replied that, arrogantly, "The FCC would have to purchase the code
> > from him". To me, that suggests that he is unwilling to disclose
> > the code because it would prove once and for all that it was
> > spread spectrum, and instead, he tried to bluff his way to
> > approval, even by changing his original description of the code as
> > spread spectrum, which obviously did not work.
> >
> > ROS's best advantage, IMHO, is for EME, and it is legal there for
> > US hams for 432 and 1296 EME. I only wish it were legal on 2M also
> > and I could use it for EME on that band.
> >
> > Yes, it should be open-source, and that would end the discussion,
> > but he has (for perhaps devious or commercial) personal reasons
> > for refusing to do so.
> >
> > That is just not going to happen, so let's end the discussion on
> > that note and get on the air instead!
> >
> > 73, Skip KH6TY
> >
> > On 7/12/2010 1:14 PM, Lester Veenstra wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Skip:
> >
> >  Spectral analysis cannot differentiate between a high
> > rate FEC operating after, as it invariably must, a randomizer,
> > and a true spread spectrum system.  And a spread spectrum
> > system does not need to employ frequency hopping. And a signal
> > that "frequency hops" is not necessarily a spread spectrum
> > signal.   I refer you to the old favorite of the UK Diplomatic
> > service, the Piccolo.
> >
> >
> >
> > As I advocated in an earlier post, the way to end this endless
> > discussion would be for the "inventor" to disclose the block
> > diagram of the various steps in his encoding/modulation
> > system. In fact I was rash enough to suggest that IMHO, all of
> > these systems being played with by hams,  should be open
> > sourced, so that, the end user can have some confidence in
> > what he is using, and the state of the art can be mutually
> > advanced.  We started with this philosophy with the TTL
> > MAINLINER-II, and continue it today with many of the DSPR
> > systems out there, including the primary commercial company.
> >  Their disclosure does not seem to have slowed them down at all.
> >
> >  Thanks 73
> >
> >  Les
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[digitalradio] http://www.hamspots.net

[Rein A]

Sorry,

73 Rein W6SZ

[digitalradio] http://www.hamspots.net

[Rein A]

Sorry,

73 Rein W6SZ

[digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?

[Rein A]

Hi Graham,

ROS software is transmitting a large quantity of messages
many fake, some will say illegal, every time your software
if turned on, and received a message from a radio amatuer with
his own call or a "borrowed"  callsign.

This was discovered due to my questioning where US calls came
from and what they represented on this logger.

  http://www.hampspots.net/ 

in Australia.

The owner has made changes and is in conflict now with the 
ROS author. ROS author wants to see ROS section closed down
on Netspots.net zodat we do not can see this happening any longer.
(more to it ) 

Both on this yahoo board and the ROS modem board you can find
details of this since last Friday when this was discovered not 
by me though.

73 Rein W6SZ

 

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "graham787"  wrote:
>
> Rein, 
> 
> I'm reading this last post , but something is missing , what  problem  is 
> Jose  supposed to  fix ? On what  ground's  should  the rest of the  world  
> stop  using  the  mode ?
> 
> My license allows me to  transmit mfsk , makes no  reference to how the  
> frequency steps are generated and  expressly forbids transmissions in code or 
>  cypher and as  Ros-1 is  freely available (for now) the secret aspect is not 
> applicable 
> 
> I think , it has been  reasonably established , that the  catch 22o clause is 
>  historic, bandwidth lead and  has been overtaken  by  technology.
> 
> Lester ,posted quite a  viable path to  resolve the  problem.. very little in 
> engineering is back  and white , Lester's post is  suitably Gray to  split 
> opinions .. and that's all  it needs ..a new common ground ..  a way out  for 
>  all  involved. 
> 
> There is nothing 'we' The old world  can do  in support of the  situation , 
> on the  contrary, perhaps the apparent exclusion  of the middle of the  'new 
> world' from technological  advancement may add  leverage ?  
> 
> 73 -G . 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, rein0zn@ wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Sigi
> > 
> > 
> > You in Germany and perhaps others in Spain, Italy, France, UK, Russia 
> > should stop
> > using ROS until Jose fixes this problem .
> > 
> > I am sure he is sensitive to that and will respond to a temporary boycott.
> > 
> > One should be able to do this via the amateur radio organizations, DARC. 
> > RSGB etc
> > They send out newsletters, get out the word so that Jose wil listen.
> > 
> > I do not think ARRL will respond, fof them it is easy, "ROS is illegal to 
> > use", so
> > why should we getting involved?
> > 
> > 73 Rein W6SZ 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > >From: Siegfried Jackstien 
> > >Sent: Jul 12, 2010 7:19 PM
> > >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> > >Subject: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
> > >
> > >That would mean if you would implement ros or similar in a multimode soft
> > >like multipsk or dm780 you would not be allowed to use it (the whole soft)
> > >in us ??? I think if only a part of the soft is forbidden to use (on
> > >transmit) all other modes can be used
> > >
> > >If for instance rtty was forbidden in germany but no other mode I can use
> > >all other modes in a given software
> > >
> > >So if in us ros hf is forbidden (but not ros mf) you could use it in us .
> > >right??
> > >
> > >Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong
> > >
> > >Sigi
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?

[Rein A]

Hi Graham,

ROS software is transmitting a large quantity of messages
many fake, some will say illegal, every time your software
if turned on, and received a message from a radio amatuer with
his own call or a "borrowed"  callsign.

This was discovered due to my questioning where US calls came
from and what they represented on this logger.

  http://www.hampsots.net/ 

in Australia.

The owner has made changes and is in conflict now with the 
ROS author. ROS author wants to see ROS section closed down
on Netspots.net zodat we do not can see this happening any longer.
(more to it ) 

Both on this yahoo board and the ROS modem board you can find
details of this since last Friday when this was discovered not 
by me though.

73 Rein W6SZ

 

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "graham787"  wrote:
>
> Rein, 
> 
> I'm reading this last post , but something is missing , what  problem  is 
> Jose  supposed to  fix ? On what  ground's  should  the rest of the  world  
> stop  using  the  mode ?
> 
> My license allows me to  transmit mfsk , makes no  reference to how the  
> frequency steps are generated and  expressly forbids transmissions in code or 
>  cypher and as  Ros-1 is  freely available (for now) the secret aspect is not 
> applicable 
> 
> I think , it has been  reasonably established , that the  catch 22o clause is 
>  historic, bandwidth lead and  has been overtaken  by  technology.
> 
> Lester ,posted quite a  viable path to  resolve the  problem.. very little in 
> engineering is back  and white , Lester's post is  suitably Gray to  split 
> opinions .. and that's all  it needs ..a new common ground ..  a way out  for 
>  all  involved. 
> 
> There is nothing 'we' The old world  can do  in support of the  situation , 
> on the  contrary, perhaps the apparent exclusion  of the middle of the  'new 
> world' from technological  advancement may add  leverage ?  
> 
> 73 -G . 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, rein0zn@ wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Sigi
> > 
> > 
> > You in Germany and perhaps others in Spain, Italy, France, UK, Russia 
> > should stop
> > using ROS until Jose fixes this problem .
> > 
> > I am sure he is sensitive to that and will respond to a temporary boycott.
> > 
> > One should be able to do this via the amateur radio organizations, DARC. 
> > RSGB etc
> > They send out newsletters, get out the word so that Jose wil listen.
> > 
> > I do not think ARRL will respond, fof them it is easy, "ROS is illegal to 
> > use", so
> > why should we getting involved?
> > 
> > 73 Rein W6SZ 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > >From: Siegfried Jackstien 
> > >Sent: Jul 12, 2010 7:19 PM
> > >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> > >Subject: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
> > >
> > >That would mean if you would implement ros or similar in a multimode soft
> > >like multipsk or dm780 you would not be allowed to use it (the whole soft)
> > >in us ??? I think if only a part of the soft is forbidden to use (on
> > >transmit) all other modes can be used
> > >
> > >If for instance rtty was forbidden in germany but no other mode I can use
> > >all other modes in a given software
> > >
> > >So if in us ros hf is forbidden (but not ros mf) you could use it in us .
> > >right??
> > >
> > >Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong
> > >
> > >Sigi
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?

[Rein A]

Dear Skip,

This is the second time you post this message about the FCC engineer

Why don't you tell us how we can get in touch with this engineer.

I would really like to hear that from that person and I would ask him
whether the info was for public consumption or "on background"
as used in the Media, "not authorized"  to talk about it because of
this or that.

Where does this person work,  Washington DC, PA, Boston?

Why is this engineer's statement not in the public domain?

FCC is a Federal Agency , not some hidden laboratory in a basement somewhere, 
privately owned, concerned about IP or patents.

Always have to get back to this point Why is this not published
by FCC on there information outlets?

They publish all the time as the Federal Communication Commission
and not to a private person or a club of hobbyists  with all respect
for the ARRL.

73 Rein W6SZ





--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY  wrote:
>
> Andy,
> 
> I have been told by a FCC engineer, part of the evaluation group at the 
> FCC, whom I will not name, that ROS 16 baud and 1 baud has been 
> evaluated in the lab and "is" spread-spectrum and therefore illegal on 
> HF, not only because the author first said it was spread spectrum and 
> then changed his story.
> 
> Anyone with DigiPan or any other PSK31 program with a waterfall can 
> verify that the frequency spreading is random and not a function of the 
> data, which is the signature of spread-spectrum.
> 
> Just because someone "feels" it is not spread spectrum does not excuse 
> them from following the regulations and those who do not risk the chance 
> of FCC action against them once someone files a complaint.
> 
> There is no reason for the FCC to "reconsider" their decision, since it 
> is based on analysis as well as the author's declaration. What can be 
> done is to submit a petition to the FCC to allow limited bandwidth 
> spread spectrum on HF by showing it is not harmful to other users of the 
> bands. The instructions for submitting a petition are available on the 
> FCC website.
> 
> Radio amateurs are responsible for following the regulations, not just 
> interpreting them as they see fit.
> 
> ROS is legal above 222 Mhz, so freely use it there if you wish. It is 
> probably really good for EME.
> 
> 73, Skip KH6TY
> 
> On 7/12/2010 6:55 AM, Andy obrien wrote:
> >
> > For those USA hams that are using ROS on HF, I assume that by using 
> > it...they feel it is not spread spectrum and thus should be legal.  Is 
> > there any movement towards petitioning the FCC to reconsider the 
> > unofficial comments by them and obtaining statements that it is legal 
> > ?  Or has everyone agreed it IS spread spectrum and given up on it 
> > becoming legal in the USA ?
> > Andy K3UK
> >
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

[Rein A]

Hi Skip.

Hope you read it this time:

Both these QSO's were on JT. On 18 April we had a long test with 
VK7MO on 23 cm. We tested a new digital mode called "ROS" on EME that has seen 
some use on 144 EME. We saw one good decode from Rex in ROS. 

We ran out of time and did not complete a QSO in ROS, but it should have been 
possible. Rex has written a fine article for DUBUS magazine about his findings 
with ROS. 

It seems ROS has no real advantages over JT65. We continued on JT65c, while Rex 
was using his software to eliminate the frequency change due to Doppler shift. 

This worked very well and we could easily copy him down to 0.5 W. After the 
Moon window with Rex closed, we worked VK2JDS and VK4CDI with 1 W on JT65. On 
the same day we managed to do what we believe is the first EME SSTV QSO on 70 
cm with HB9Q! Pictures lo

  from 432 and Above EME Newsletter Aug 2010

 http://www.nitehawk.com/rasmit/em70cm.html

  See under PI9CAS 

See also last Issue DUBUS Magazine , full report by Rex VK7MO
as referenced here before.


73 Rein W6SZ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY  wrote:
>
> Lester,
> The "inventor" has shown over and over that he is not to be trusted, and 
> so his block diagram would not be believed either. I suggested months 
> ago to him to just send his code in confidence to the FCC, which they 
> would keep private, and be done with it. He replied that, arrogantly, 
> "The FCC would have to purchase the code from him". To me, that suggests 
> that he is unwilling to disclose the code because it would prove once 
> and for all that it was spread spectrum, and instead, he tried to bluff 
> his way to approval, even by changing his original description of the 
> code as spread spectrum, which obviously did not work.
> 
> ROS's best advantage, IMHO, is for EME, and it is legal there for US 
> hams for 432 and 1296 EME. I only wish it were legal on 2M also and I 
> could use it for EME on that band.
> 
> Yes, it should be open-source, and that would end the discussion, but he 
> has (for perhaps devious or commercial) personal reasons for refusing to 
> do so.
> 
> That is just not going to happen, so let's end the discussion on that 
> note and get on the air instead!
> 
> 73, Skip KH6TY
> 
> On 7/12/2010 1:14 PM, Lester Veenstra wrote:
> >
> > Skip:
> >
> >  Spectral analysis cannot differentiate between a high rate FEC 
> > operating after, as it invariably must, a randomizer, and a true 
> > spread spectrum system.  And a spread spectrum system does not need to 
> > employ frequency hopping. And a signal that "frequency hops" is not 
> > necessarily a spread spectrum signal.   I refer you to the old 
> > favorite of the UK Diplomatic service, the Piccolo.
> >
> > As I advocated in an earlier post, the way to end this endless 
> > discussion would be for the "inventor" to disclose the block diagram 
> > of the various steps in his encoding/modulation system. In fact I was 
> > rash enough to suggest that IMHO, all of these systems being played 
> > with by hams,  should be open sourced, so that, the end user can have 
> > some confidence in what he is using, and the state of the art can be 
> > mutually advanced.  We started with this philosophy with the TTL 
> > MAINLINER-II, and continue it today with many of the DSPR systems out 
> > there, including the primary commercial company.  Their disclosure 
> > does not seem to have slowed them down at all.
> >
> > Thanks 73
> >
> >  Les
> >
> >
> >
>

[digitalradio] Yahoo Ros Modem zgroup to stay alive!

[Rein A]

Hi all,

David, who got this group going and has served us all well during some pretty
difficult times, has decided it is time to move on. So that those interested in
ROS can continue to exchange ideas and support each other he has agreed that the
group should continue.

To this end David has transferred ownership to me. I shall try to do as well as
he has in keeping it running. All I ask is that we be positive in the sense that
the purpose of the group is to support each other in our use of ROS and
exploration of data communications of this type.

73

Howard
VK4BS

[digitalradio] Re: ROS modem Yahoo Group

[Rein A]

Andy,


Guessing:  the same reason why you dropped the ROS section from
your page(s) a few months ago ( after ARRL message )

Read the messages on cluster reporting ( not my interest of
specialty. )

Thank you for not throwing me from this reflector.

My interest is and was ROS/US.

73 Rein W6SZ

 
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>
> Why?
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Rein A  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > CLOSING GROUP TOMORROW EVE.
> > IF YOU NEED TO COPY ANYTHING, GET ER DONE !
> >
> > DAVID/WD4KPD
> >
> >
>

[digitalradio] ROS modem Yahoo Group

[Rein A]

CLOSING GROUP TOMORROW EVE.
IF YOU NEED TO COPY ANYTHING, GET ER DONE !

DAVID/WD4KPD

[digitalradio] Aother US fake call ( station )

[Rein A]

Perhaps some body with the right tracking capabilities can research
the path of this message.

There has been no propagation over the last couple of hours between SM6
and California.

It looks to me there are more questions here than just  blaming
the ROS software, Though I can be wrong as I often am.

73 Rein W6SZ

[digitalradio] Another fake US call

[Rein A]

  From QRZ.com:


The search for "WK6UR" produced no results.


>From Hamspots:


Jul11 13:17 +4h WK6UR United States, 14103.00 20 ROS test SM0RUX-6  IK5PWQ

Every valid US licensee is on QRZ.com / FCC pages listed.

73 Rein W6SZ

[digitalradio] Re: ROS are sending data from your PC - banned call list

[Rein A]

That could well be the case. Same perhaps for some of his other
actions in the past, present and most likely in future.

Then, of course it really does not matter whether is is working or not!

73 Rein W6SZ



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wright  wrote:
>
> "even Jose would understand it to be insane to have programs distributed
> with built-in banned lists."
> 
> Well, maybe he removed it, but it was definitely there at one timeso
> maybe it was temporary insanity?
> 
> 
> Dave
> K3DCW
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Rein A  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dave.
> >
> > I tried that , transmitting into dummy load yesterday with John's
> > call and I told John that it did work on my computer.
> >
> > John then replied that he thought once the computer had been on the
> > banned list it was useless for ever for running ROS ( some in the registry
> > perhaps )
> > We then talked about testing his xyl's computer computer. We all know now
> > what happened there.
> >
> > As I thought and expressed here a few times, even Jose would understand it
> > to be insane to have programs distributed with built-in banned lists.
> >
> > My procedure is as follows.
> >
> > Rename old ROS directory
> > make new directory ROS.
> > download new version ( almost daily operation but that is OK
> > past download in ROS directory
> > extract program zipped file
> > use Install Script
> > create new short cut
> > paste new shortcut
> > click shortcut
> > make sure waterfall is turned on
> > for new installations check audio level settings of selected
> > sound cards. Like to see some noise on waterfall.
> > make sure program gets audio from receiver, WEBSDR or other audio source.
> > no configuration ( no Call for cluster problem )
> >
> > Has always worked here without a any problem. Program locates always
> > the correct sound card
> >
> > 73 Rein W6SZ
> >
> >
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com , Dave
> > Wright  wrote:
> > >
> > > So, did you actually transmit using another op's call sign? Or, did you
> > just
> > > plug them in and say that it works? As I recall, the non-grata ops could
> > > enter their calls during setup but it would not transmit. So, unless
> > G4ILO,
> > > K5OKC, N1SZ or I (or other banned ops) actually decide to try to
> > transmit,
> > > it doesn't mean a thing.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > > K3DCW
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:06 PM, pd4u_dares  wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I tried the new ROS version 4.6.0. and K5OKC,N1SZ and G4ILO worked. So
> > the
> > > > "hard coded banned call list" no longer exists.
> > > >
> > > > Marc, PD4U
> > > >
> > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
> > > >  > 40yahoogroups.com>, Dave
> >
> > > > Wright  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The discussion of the persona-non-grata list was started here:
> > > > > http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742&highlight=ros. It
> > starts
> > > > > getting pretty interesting around page 4 or 5.
> > > > >
> > > > > In March, the list consisted of the following calls: *
> > > > > K5OKC,N1SZ,G4ILO,W4PC,W9IQ,KY5U,KQ6XA,G0GQK,N3RQ,N1SZ,KC4ARAN,
> > > > > GW7AAV,WA1ZMS,K3DCWyep, N1SZ got the good double whammy
> > probation.
> > > > >
> > > > > *Since that time, Jose has taken steps to further hide the list in
> > the
> > > > code
> > > > > by changing his programming environment, making it much harder to
> > > > decompile
> > > > > the list. I'm not sure anyone has tried recently.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:44 PM,  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I want to know about the list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If it does exists, I will fight for radio amateur's loyalty to
> > > > > > stop using ROS until the list is removed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Dave
> > > > > K3DCW
> > > > > www.k3dcw.net
> > > > >
> > > > > "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dave
> > > K3DCW
> > > www.k3dcw.net
> > >
> > > "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dave
> K3DCW
> www.k3dcw.net
> 
> "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
>

[digitalradio] Re: ROS are sending data from your PC - banned call list

[Rein A]

Dave. 

I tried that , transmitting into dummy load yesterday with John's
call and I told John that it did work on my computer.

John then replied that he thought once the computer had been on the
banned list it was useless for ever for running ROS ( some in the registry 
perhaps )
We then talked about testing his xyl's computer computer. We all know now what 
happened there.

As I thought and expressed here a few times, even Jose would understand it to 
be insane to have programs distributed with built-in banned lists.

My procedure is as follows. 

Rename old ROS directory
make new directory ROS.
download new version ( almost daily  operation but that is OK
past download in ROS directory
extract program zipped file
use Install Script
create new short cut
paste new shortcut 
click shortcut
make sure waterfall is turned on
for new installations check audio level settings of selected
sound cards. Like to see some noise on waterfall.
make sure program gets audio from receiver, WEBSDR or other audio source.
no configuration ( no Call for cluster problem )

Has always worked here without a any problem. Program locates always
the correct sound card

73 Rein W6SZ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wright  wrote:
>
> So, did you actually transmit using another op's call sign? Or, did you just
> plug them in and say that it works?  As I recall, the non-grata ops could
> enter their calls during setup but it would not transmit.  So, unless G4ILO,
> K5OKC, N1SZ or I (or other banned ops) actually decide to try to transmit,
> it doesn't mean a thing.
> 
> Dave
> K3DCW
> 
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:06 PM, pd4u_dares  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > I tried the new ROS version 4.6.0. and K5OKC,N1SZ and G4ILO worked. So the
> > "hard coded banned call list" no longer exists.
> >
> > Marc, PD4U
> >
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com , Dave
> > Wright  wrote:
> > >
> > > The discussion of the persona-non-grata list was started here:
> > > http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742&highlight=ros. It starts
> > > getting pretty interesting around page 4 or 5.
> > >
> > > In March, the list consisted of the following calls: *
> > > K5OKC,N1SZ,G4ILO,W4PC,W9IQ,KY5U,KQ6XA,G0GQK,N3RQ,N1SZ,KC4ARAN,
> > > GW7AAV,WA1ZMS,K3DCWyep, N1SZ got the good double whammy probation.
> > >
> > > *Since that time, Jose has taken steps to further hide the list in the
> > code
> > > by changing his programming environment, making it much harder to
> > decompile
> > > the list. I'm not sure anyone has tried recently.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:44 PM,  wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I want to know about the list.
> > > >
> > > > If it does exists, I will fight for radio amateur's loyalty to
> > > > stop using ROS until the list is removed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Dave
> > > K3DCW
> > > www.k3dcw.net
> > >
> > > "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dave
> K3DCW
> www.k3dcw.net
> 
> "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
>

[digitalradio] Re: ROS are sending data from your PC - banned call list

[Rein A]

Hallo NArc,


Stond je ooit op de z.g. banned lijst?  Ben je daar zeker van?

Ik ben steeds van mening geweest dat er de laaste maanden geen lijst was.

Nu echter willen mensen het zelfs niet proberen. Wel te begrijpen
natturlijk

73 Rein W6SZ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "pd4u_dares"  wrote:
>
> 
> I tried the new ROS version 4.6.0. and K5OKC,N1SZ and G4ILO worked. So the 
> "hard coded banned call list" no longer exists.
> 
> Marc, PD4U
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wright  wrote:
> >
> > The discussion of the persona-non-grata list was started here:
> > http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742&highlight=ros. It starts
> > getting pretty interesting around page 4 or 5.
> > 
> > In March, the list consisted of the following calls:  *
> > K5OKC,N1SZ,G4ILO,W4PC,W9IQ,KY5U,KQ6XA,G0GQK,N3RQ,N1SZ,KC4ARAN,
> > GW7AAV,WA1ZMS,K3DCWyep, N1SZ got the good double whammy probation.
> > 
> > *Since that time, Jose has taken steps to further hide the list in the code
> > by changing his programming environment, making it much harder to decompile
> > the list.  I'm not sure anyone has tried recently.
> > 
> > Dave
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:44 PM,  wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > I want to know about the list.
> > >
> > > If it does exists, I will fight for radio amateur's loyalty to
> > > stop using ROS until the list is removed.
> > >
> > >
> > -- 
> > Dave
> > K3DCW
> > www.k3dcw.net
> > 
> > "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: ROS are sending data from your PC

[Rein A]

Agreed John.

At least it should be up to the users of ROS.

I think on this, one Jose wants the program to do things and
I am sure many people do not mind. But it should be a selection
to be made by the user, I believe.

See my messages on the this subject.

73 Rein W6SZ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, W�JAB"  wrote:
>
> At 06:18 PM 7/8/2010, you wrote:
> 
> 
> >Hi John,
> >
> >
> >That IP address is probably a cluster in Sweden that was added by Jose to 
> >the list of clusters to be served by ROS users. 
> >Amateur radio is a global hobby.
> >
> >73 Rein W6SZ
> 
> Oh I agree about the being "global" but I would much rather do it myself.
> Seems that every time I read a post about ROS I (and others) find yet another 
> not
> to us it.
> 
> 
> John, W0JAB
>

[digitalradio] Interesting comcept in EU ( DStar related )

[Rein A]

Greetings ALL,


http://draf.asso.fr/index.php?pages/Digital-Voice-Internet-Access-in-France-Petition

A petition to the European Government about a radio amateur digital
mode with potential participants from all over the EU.

( Hope this is an international board ) 

73 Rein W6SZ

[digitalradio] Re: ROS are sending data from your PC

[Rein A]

Hi John,


That IP address is probably a cluster in Sweden that was added by Jose to the 
list of clusters to be served by ROS users. 
Amateur radio is a global hobby.

73 Rein W6SZ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB"  wrote:
>
> At 02:28 PM 7/8/2010, you wrote:
> >Hi Rain
> >
> >You have absolutely right . ROS are sending data from your PC to the
> >cluster. Try to type the IP address  90.225.73.203:8000 into your
> >browser and you get this:
> 
> Why would it telnet to an IP address in Sweden?
>

[digitalradio] DSTAR in France Follow up, English atricle

[Rein A]

http://draf.asso.fr/index.php?post/2010/06/28/D-STAR-situation-in-France

Read about suggested remedies,.

73 Rein W6SZ

[digitalradio] DSTAR in France

[Rein A]

Greetings ALL,

Just looking around a little here and finding news about the digital
voice program DSTAR ruled illegal in France.

To be frank about it, I know little about DSTAR but the interesting
issue for me at least, is that some of the same issues play here as for ROS 
Modem in the US.

French Radio Amateurs asking for help from non French amateurs to address this 
ruling in EU Parlement. 

see here :  http://www.eham.net/articles/24165

Google DSTAR France will provide more info o this.

73 Rein W6SZ

[digitalradio] Hamspots site and ROS

[Rein A]

Hi All,


Most of us might have noticed the disappearance of the ROS section
at the Australian ham spots list.

http://hamspots.net/ ros/

I just noticed at least one reaction:

 A wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Can anyone explaine why the HamSpots web page for ROS, now states:

+++
Maybe lack of use? Whenever I've looked on there I've either been alone
or had one other member and possibly a guest.
+++

How would one classify a statement like the above one?

Deadly silence probably.

73 Rein W6SZ

[digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP

[Rein A]

Hello Dave, K3DCW, and all others,

What an eyeopener, that QRZ forum!

   http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742.

Have been there in the beginning of this venture, but after having been shouted 
down on the other Yahoo group by some individuals and their uninformed 
follower's, I was under the impression that as far as
the US ham population went this had become a "dead" issue, little interest, and 
the "lets move on" motto in place.
Far from that, it appears.

I like to use this method and in spite of its author, figurehow more or less 
useful it is in Weak Signal.

Like to refer to a serious article in the VHF/UHF/EME/microwave
magazine DUBUS. Reporting on some serious testing and comparisons with the EME 
designed WSJT method(s) by K1JT. 
Tests were done and reported by VK7MO, a well known weak signal person. 

In my opinion this is drifting into an area that is not good for amateur radio.

The author refuses to listen, understand, address amateur radio licensing, 
domestic and international oversight and regulation, frequency coordination, 
and I can go on and on.

Keeps referring to me as the "ARRL's messenger" as I tried so many
times, to explain the difference between a radio amateur organization
and an US Federal Regulatory Agency with world wide connection to
the same in other countries.

It is for instance, a big puzzle how an author of a software
protocol can assign frequencies without checking with other users.

Anyway, glad to see that I not just a single trouble maker as I
am probably classified in certain circles.

73 Rein W6SZ 



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave"  wrote:
>
> Rein,
>  
> There are several (around a dozen I think) amateur operators that are
> "prohibited" from using ROS by having their call signs hard-coded into a
> persona-non-grata listing in ROS.  I am proud to be one of those ops.  This
> has been extensively documented on QRZ in the following thread:
> <http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742>
> http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742.
>  
> I didn't think that John was one of them, but it has been awhile since the
> list was looked at last.  
>  
> Dave
> K3DCW
>  
>  
>   _  
> 
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Rein A
> Sent: Wednesday, 02 June, 2010 17:12
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
> 
> 
>   
> 
> Hello John,
> 
> If your situation is not due to an installation problem
> or other, but is part of the distributed software, planned,
> programmed in, it might well have other consequences.
> 
> ROS modem is under consideration to be incorporated in other
> amateur radio digital packages. 
> Think about that angle.
> 
> 73 Rein W6SZ 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "John Becker, WØJAB"  wrote:
> >
> > Rein
> > 
> > Really don't know what to say at this point.
> > Still trying to understand why my call was added to
> > the list of calls "not able" to use the ROS program.
> > 
> > But since Jose will not say I'll just move on to things 
> > other then ROS. But I'm not the only one that this 
> > has happen to. No big deal I have gotten over it long ago.
> > 
> > Now I'm just guessing but I think he may have misunderstood
> > something I may have said in a post. Really not sure for the reason
> > but since he is not talking about it I guess anyone of us that have 
> > been banned from using the program will never know.
> > 
> > It all started when he posted a update to his program and then I 
> > found out that I could no longer us it. Like others.
> > 
> > But I still have one of the first versions on a memory stick 
> > that I could use on the other computer if needed.
> > 
> > Seems he is the *only* one that's knows and at this time is
> > not saying. So be it - I got over it long ago.
> > 
> > John, W0JAB
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP

[Rein A]

Hello Dave, K3DCW, and all others,

What an eyeopener, that QRZ forum!

   http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742.

Have been there in the beginning of this venture, but after having been shouted 
down on the other Yahoo group by some individuals and their uninformed 
follower's, I was under the impression that as far as
the US ham population went this had become a "dead" issue, little interest, and 
the "lets move on" motto in place.
Far from that, it appears.

I like to use this method and in spite of its author, figurehow more or less 
useful it is in Weak Signal.

Like to refer to a serious article in the VHF/UHF/EME/microwave
magazine DUBUS. Reporting on some serious testing and comparisons with the EME 
designed WSJT method(s) by K1JT. 
Tests were done and reported by VK7MO, a well known weak signal person. 

In my opinion this is drifting into an area that is not good for amateur radio.

The author refuses to listen, understand, address amateur radio licensing, 
domestic and international oversight and regulation, frequency coordination, 
and I can go on and on.

Keeps referring to me as the "ARRL's messenger" as I tried so many
times, to explain the difference between a radio amateur organization
and an US Federal Regulatory Agency with world wide connection to
the same in other countries.

It is for instance, a big puzzle how an author of a software
protocol can assign frequencies without checking with other users.

Anyway, glad to see that I not just a single trouble maker as I
am probably classified in certain circles.

73 Rein W6SZ 



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave"  wrote:
>
> Rein,
>  
> There are several (around a dozen I think) amateur operators that are
> "prohibited" from using ROS by having their call signs hard-coded into a
> persona-non-grata listing in ROS.  I am proud to be one of those ops.  This
> has been extensively documented on QRZ in the following thread:
> <http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742>
> http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742.
>  
> I didn't think that John was one of them, but it has been awhile since the
> list was looked at last.  
>  
> Dave
> K3DCW
>  
>  
>   _  
> 
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Rein A
> Sent: Wednesday, 02 June, 2010 17:12
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
> 
> 
>   
> 
> Hello John,
> 
> If your situation is not due to an installation problem
> or other, but is part of the distributed software, planned,
> programmed in, it might well have other consequences.
> 
> ROS modem is under consideration to be incorporated in other
> amateur radio digital packages. 
> Think about that angle.
> 
> 73 Rein W6SZ 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "John Becker, WØJAB"  wrote:
> >
> > Rein
> > 
> > Really don't know what to say at this point.
> > Still trying to understand why my call was added to
> > the list of calls "not able" to use the ROS program.
> > 
> > But since Jose will not say I'll just move on to things 
> > other then ROS. But I'm not the only one that this 
> > has happen to. No big deal I have gotten over it long ago.
> > 
> > Now I'm just guessing but I think he may have misunderstood
> > something I may have said in a post. Really not sure for the reason
> > but since he is not talking about it I guess anyone of us that have 
> > been banned from using the program will never know.
> > 
> > It all started when he posted a update to his program and then I 
> > found out that I could no longer us it. Like others.
> > 
> > But I still have one of the first versions on a memory stick 
> > that I could use on the other computer if needed.
> > 
> > Seems he is the *only* one that's knows and at this time is
> > not saying. So be it - I got over it long ago.
> > 
> > John, W0JAB
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Follow-up

[Rein A]

Hello All,

from the OFFICIAL ROSMODEM WEBPAGE at 05:38 UTC:


On June  7 at 00:00:01 UTC, new improvements will be incorporated to ROS Modes 
(ROS HF16, ROS HF8 and ROS MF7)

It will improve a little more the robutness that characterizes to ROS Modes. 
So, this time, i expect will be possible across USA sky above ARRL headquarters 
with 0.015 watts instead of 0.025 watts of the latest QSO.

Changes have been programmed previously in the software from version 3.6.5 two 
wees ago, so you should not problems during the transition.

Sound records like youtuve, etc.. will not work with the new ROS from D-Day and 
H-Hour.

ciao

What's say Simon? 

73 Rein W6SZ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rein A"  wrote:
>
> Hello John,
> 
> 
> If your situation is not due to an installation problem
> or other, but is part of the distributed software, planned,
> programmed in, it might well have other consequences.
> 
> ROS modem is under consideration to be incorporated in other
> amateur radio digital packages. 
> Think about that angle.
> 
> 73 Rein W6SZ 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB"  wrote:
> >
> > Rein
> > 
> > Really don't know what to say at this point.
> > Still trying to understand why my call was added to
> > the list of calls "not able" to use the ROS program.
> > 
> > But since Jose will not say I'll just move on to things 
> > other then ROS. But I'm not the only one that this 
> > has happen to. No big deal I have gotten over it long ago.
> > 
> > Now I'm just guessing but I think he may have misunderstood
> > something I may have said in a post. Really not sure for the reason
> > but since he is not talking about it I guess anyone of us that have 
> > been banned from using the program will never know.
> > 
> > It all started when he posted a update to his program and then I 
> > found out that I could no longer us it. Like others.
> > 
> > But I still have one of the first versions on a memory stick 
> > that I could use on the other computer if needed.
> > 
> > Seems he is the *only* one that's knows and at this time is
> > not saying. So be it - I got over it long ago.
> > 
> > John, W0JAB
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP

[Rein A]

Hello John,


If your situation is not due to an installation problem
or other, but is part of the distributed software, planned,
programmed in, it might well have other consequences.

ROS modem is under consideration to be incorporated in other
amateur radio digital packages. 
Think about that angle.

73 Rein W6SZ 

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB"  wrote:
>
> Rein
> 
> Really don't know what to say at this point.
> Still trying to understand why my call was added to
> the list of calls "not able" to use the ROS program.
> 
> But since Jose will not say I'll just move on to things 
> other then ROS. But I'm not the only one that this 
> has happen to. No big deal I have gotten over it long ago.
> 
> Now I'm just guessing but I think he may have misunderstood
> something I may have said in a post. Really not sure for the reason
> but since he is not talking about it I guess anyone of us that have 
> been banned from using the program will never know.
> 
> It all started when he posted a update to his program and then I 
> found out that I could no longer us it. Like others.
> 
> But I still have one of the first versions on a memory stick 
> that I could use on the other computer if needed.
> 
> Seems he is the *only* one that's knows and at this time is
> not saying. So be it - I got over it long ago.
> 
> John, W0JAB
>

[digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP

[Rein A]

Hello,

Your request to join the ROSDigitalMode group was not approved.
The moderator of each Yahoo! group chooses whether to restrict
membership in the group. Moderators who choose to restrict
membership also choose whom to admit.

Please note that this decision is final and that Yahoo! Groups 
does not control group membership.

You may find other groups to join by searching or browsing the
Groups directory:
http://groups.yahoo.com 

If you would like to create your own group, please visit:
http://groups.yahoo.com/start

Thank you for choosing Yahoo! Groups.


Regards,

Yahoo! Groups Customer Care

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

73 Rein W6SZ
 

[digitalradio] What is here Spread Spectrum and why and what is not?

[Rein A]

Hello All,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOmrgJkFY40

I found this interesting YouTube video, interesting to me at least.

It is going a to be a big help watching waterfalls at 14.103 kHz and
other channels such as 

   http://etgd2.ewi.utwente.nl:8901/

73 Rein W6SZ

[digitalradio] IV3NWV, designer of PERSEUS SDR receiver !

[Rein A]

http://www.youtube.com/user/IV3NWV

73 Rein W6SZ

[digitalradio] More on FCC contacts

[Rein A]

Hello All,

I found this on the VHF reflecor in the US:
by Bill Pasternak WA6ITF.

WA6ITF is or was publishing an Amateur Radio Newsline and
had contacts in the agency due too his present ot previos
work ( Radio & TV broadcasting )
In thr past I havebeen in contact with him about translating
German amatuer radio news items.

 73 Rein W6SZ




 will, read the following quote from the ARRL web site:

"When queried about this new statement, the FCC's Consumer Assistance Office
stated that "[T]he information contained on the ROS Web site was not
provided by the FCC." They then reaffirmed the original statements that
originated from the FCC's Wireless Bureau, which handles Amateur Radio rules
for the US."

So the Consumer Assistance Office did not make any statements other than
that the information on the ROS site did not come from the FCC, and that the
FCC's declarations came from the Wireless Bureau.  That sounds suspiciously
to me like the same place you suggested we ask.

Russ K2TXB
 

> -Original Message-
> From: owner-...@w6yx.stanford.edu 
> [mailto:owner-...@w6yx.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of William M. Pasternak
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:18 PM
> To: w0...@aol.com; v...@w6yx.stanford.edu; 
> moon-...@list-serv.davidv.net; m...@moonbounce.info
> Cc: kl...@acsalaska.net; w...@q.com
> Subject: Re: [VHF] FCC Reaffirms Statement on ROS 
> 
> I must ask:  What does the FCC "Consimer Assistance" phone 
> line or e-mail know abnout ham radio.  Answer:  Absolutely 
> nothing.  If you want to know about the "legality" of ROS or 
> any other mode the only person at the FCC whan can accurately 
> address Part 97 issues is Bill Cross, W3TN, of the Mobility 
> Division (former Rules Division).  Before taking as gospel 
> something that comes from a "unnamed telephone operator" I 
> would think that someone among the minds here on this 
> remailer would write or e-mail Bill Cross -- and ask him if 
> ROS is or is not a legal mode for UI.S. hams.
> 
> de
> WA6ITF

[digitalradio] Re: JT65A harmonics

[Rein A]

Hello Jose,

I always set the sound card volume , the modulation, that when changing the 
volume setting , the output of the transmitter will follow in a linear fashion.
This is very important in particuar for WSPR and  WSPR-QSO modes.

73 Rein W6SZ 

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador"  wrote:
>
> 
> No, and sorry if I misled anyone. I do have both WSJT and MultiPSK, I 
> nowadays use MultiPSK mostly for HF, but I have actually not come across 
> such a case
> particularly with JT65. Of course it has been more than usual for some 
> particular ops on 14070, but in spite of the apparent simplicity, even 
> PSK31 is not plug and play stuff like a key and a CW transmitter used to 
> be in the past, it takes a bit of knowledge to get an SSB transceiver 
> with a clean soundcard mode signal on the air.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Jose, CO2JA
> 
> PS: There is more I would like to do than the available free time allows 
> lately for me.
> 
> ---
> 
> El 06/03/2010 12:20, rein...@... escribió:
> > Hello Jose,
> >
> > This was clearly a case of overloading, most likely on the transmitter
> > side, over driving perhaps the sound card or the transmitter being
> > over loaded by the sound card's signal.
> >
> > The K3 is too good a receiver, but it is part of your receiving chain.
> >
> > Properly running WSJT should not show it and as a full time WSJT
> > operator, I have rarely seen it, recently at least,
> >
> > It is of course not my business, but I am surprised that you have no
> > WSJT capabilities, it seems.
> >
> > 73 Rein W6SZ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> >
> >> From: "Jose A. Amador"
> >> Sent: Mar 6, 2010 8:54 AM
> >> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> >> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] JT65A harmonics
> >>
> >> El 06/03/2010 11:28, g4ilo escribió:
> >>  
> >>> I was listening down around 14.077, just above some slow FSK mode which I 
> >>> think is JT65A. The JT65A was tuned quite low pitched in my receiver, and 
> >>> I could clearly see "images" of it over to the right. Judging by the 
> >>> spacing of the "image" tones I was seeing an audio third harmonic of the 
> >>> original signal. The image tones were clearly visible and would have been 
> >>> copyiable in their own right if not for the 3x spacing.
> >>>
> >>> My transceiver is a K3 and the signal was just an S9 so overload or 
> >>> intermod are unlikely to be the issue, but to make sure the images 
> >>> weren't being generated this end I tuned in some strong RTTY and found no 
> >>> harmonic images of the signal.
> >>>
> >>> Has anyone else seen this? Aren't the tones supposed to be generated at 
> >>> such a frequency that any harmonics are cut off by the SSB filter?
> >>>
> >>> Julian, G4ILO
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I have not seen that particular case. But the radio should be driven at
> >> a reasonable lever where harmonics or unnaceptable IMD products are not
> >> created. A SDR, becoming so common nowadays,  cannot rely on the
> >> filtering of hardware radios.
> >>
> >> Jose, CO2JA
> >>
> >>
>

[digitalradio] Jose, for Spanish Speakers

[Rein A]

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

73 Rein W6SZ

[digitalradio] What is SS?

[Rein A]

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 
> >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