Re: [digitalradio] Ros Use in US ( Urgent )
On 08/13/2010 07:08 PM, Andy obrien wrote: WE9XLQ us not a valid USA callsign It may not be a ham callsign, but it is a valid callsign... EXPERIMENTAL SPECIAL TEMPORARY AUTHORIZATION CLASS of Station XD FX EMISSION Designator SK25J2D Experition 3:00 AM EST Jan 31 2011. Call Sign WE9XLQ -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Ros Use in US ( Urgent )
WE9XLQ us not a valid USA callsign Andy On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: What ? On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Rein A rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: 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
Re: [digitalradio] ROS HF Path Simulations
OK, Thanks for your answer :) LA5VNA Steinar On 03.08.2010 07:06, Tony wrote: Steinar, I've been monitoring ROS on-the-air and I've done some testing with the HF path simulator. In my opinion, it's about as good as one would expect from an MFSK mode with a relatively slow baud rate. Tests show that it will outperform RTTY and PSK31 in poor channel conditions (most MFSK modes do) but it does not appear to be as robust as Olivia. For example, it is less tolerant to Doppler spreading than Olivia so it's less likely to do well when the ionosphere disturbed. This is especially true for polar paths and the low-latitude ionosphere where Doppler spread is more of an issue. While the mode performs well over HF, the additional bandwidth doesn't appear to have any throughput advantage over other modes that use less spectrum. In fact, path simulations indicate that there is no difference in throughput between ROS 500/16 and ROS 2250/16. Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] ROS HF Path Simulations
On 8/1/2010 7:31 AM, Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Tony Have you done some test comparing ros with mods like psk31 , rtty , olivia etc? Yes I have Steinar Tony -K2MO a5vna Steinar On 20.07.2010 03:42, Tony wrote: All, With all the attention ROS has been getting lately, I thought it would be interesting to see how the narrow mode compared to the wide version under the controlled environment of the HF path simulator. After a few hours of testing, it seems there's little difference between the two. The simulator indicated that they both had the same sensitivity (-15db) and essentially the same poor channel performance characteristics (see throughput samples below). In no case did one mode outperform the other to the point where it would make any real difference; both have the essentially the same wpm rate as well. These tests are not conclusive, but they do suggest that there may not be any real advantage in using the wide mode vs narrow under most circumstances. Of course, the simulator can only emulate the basic characteristics of the real HF channel so it would be interesting to hear from those who have compared the two on-air. Tony -K2MO __ CCIR-520-2 POOR CHANNEL SIMULATIONS: -11DB SNR ROS 2250 / 16 baud the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazlµog Lghe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quccirown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog Âe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fealoeumps ovahe lazEh/i ROS 500 / 16 baud the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick breFn fox juo3s over tes lazy dog the quæe t ´uls r?umps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown f Á jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dogQo
Re: [digitalradio] ROS HF Path Simulations
OK, is it public ? I can't find anything on digitalradio yahoogroup LA5VNA Steinar On 02.08.2010 12:58, Tony wrote: On 8/1/2010 7:31 AM, Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Tony Have you done some test comparing ros with mods like psk31 , rtty , olivia etc? Yes I have Steinar Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] ROS HF Path Simulations
Steinar, I've been monitoring ROS on-the-air and I've done some testing with the HF path simulator. In my opinion, it's about as good as one would expect from an MFSK mode with a relatively slow baud rate. Tests show that it will outperform RTTY and PSK31 in poor channel conditions (most MFSK modes do) but it does not appear to be as robust as Olivia. For example, it is less tolerant to Doppler spreading than Olivia so it's less likely to do well when the ionosphere disturbed. This is especially true for polar paths and the low-latitude ionosphere where Doppler spread is more of an issue. While the mode performs well over HF, the additional bandwidth doesn't appear to have any throughput advantage over other modes that use less spectrum. In fact, path simulations indicate that there is no difference in throughput between ROS 500/16 and ROS 2250/16. Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] ROS v 4.8.X not spamming cluster - NOT
Hi Steinar, Unfortunately, v4.8.x of ROS still spams the DX Cluster with auto-spots. Only way to effectively stop is block adif.exe at the firewall. ROS Auto-Spots too Cluster currently represent 98% of all ROS Cluster spots, with ROS representing 6.2% of all Cluster spots (7 day period). As far as I can tell, ROS software is the only Digital-Mode software that doesn't allow the user to turn off auto-spots (to either PSKReporter or Cluster) or allow user-selection of Cluster. The user is not given any choice. All the other software developers are more Ham/Cluster friendly. :( de Laurie, VK3AMA On 24/07/2010 2:35 AM, Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi all, It seems that the latest ROS is not spamming the cluster. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
Re: [digitalradio] ROS HF Path Simulations wide vs. narrow
Thanks for the testing Tony. We observe Doppler shifts of as much as 100 Hz and Doppler spreads around 50 Hz or greater. On SSB phone, a S3 signal will not be intelligible and you can hear the voice pitch go down in a fluttering manner. ROS definitely produces nothing but garbage when SSB phone is not understandable, but Contestia will keep on printing perfectly. That is just one more reason that there are better modes than ROS we can use, are of much less bandwidth, and equal of better sensitivity. As someone pointed out, spread spectrum is basically used for encryption and has no advantage in disturbed environments. BTW, it is interesting to note the huge impact of Pawel Jalocha has on the use of digital on the ham bands. His SLOPSK development was the basis for G3PLX's PSK31, and now, Olivia is the highest performing digital mode. It is as if he were the father of all we are working with today! I wish I knew more about his background. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/21/2010 12:15 AM, Tony wrote: On 7/20/2010 3:54 PM, KH6TY wrote: Our on-air tests show that ROS 16 baud, 2200 Hz wide spread spectrum was very poor on UHF under Doppler spreading. Can you confirm this with flutter tests like Jaak has done. Skip, My path tests show that ROS is less tolerant to Doppler spread than Olivia or one of it's variants so I'd have to agree with your on-air evaluation. Throughput starts to fail as the Doppler spread is increased beyond 20Hz (two channels 2ms delay) and I suspect you could be experiencing frequency dispersions beyond that range. I haven't been able to find any propagation data that shows how much Doppler spread is likely take place on VHF/UHF. Wish I knew that answer to that. Tony -K2MO Tony, Our on-air tests show that ROS 16 baud, 2200 Hz wide spread spectrum was very poor on UHF under Doppler spreading. Can you confirm this with flutter tests like Jaak has done on http://contestia.blogspot.com/p/pathsim_09.html http://contestia.blogspot.com/p/pathsim_09.html ? 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 9:42 PM, Tony wrote: All, With all the attention ROS has been getting lately, I thought it would be interesting to see how the narrow mode compared to the wide version under the controlled environment of the HF path simulator. After a few hours of testing, it seems there's little difference between the two. The simulator indicated that they both had the same sensitivity (-15db) and essentially the same poor channel performance characteristics (see throughput samples below). In no case did one mode outperform the other to the point where it would make any real difference; both have the essentially the same wpm rate as well. These tests are not conclusive, but they do suggest that there may not be any real advantage in using the wide mode vs narrow under most circumstances. Of course, the simulator can only emulate the basic characteristics of the real HF channel so it would be interesting to hear from those who have compared the two on-air. Tony -K2MO CCIR-520-2 POOR CHANNEL SIMULATIONS: -11DB SNR ROS 2250 / 16 baud the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazlµog Lghe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quccirown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog Âe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fealoeumps ovahe lazEh/i ROS 500 / 16 baud the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick breFn fox juo3s over tes lazy dog the quæe t ´uls r?umps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown f Á jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dogQo __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5293 (20100719) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com http://www.eset.com http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links * 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] ROS HF Path Simulations wide vs. narrow
Tony, Our on-air tests show that ROS 16 baud, 2200 Hz wide spread spectrum was very poor on UHF under Doppler spreading. Can you confirm this with flutter tests like Jaak has done on http://contestia.blogspot.com/p/pathsim_09.html ? 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 9:42 PM, Tony wrote: All, With all the attention ROS has been getting lately, I thought it would be interesting to see how the narrow mode compared to the wide version under the controlled environment of the HF path simulator. After a few hours of testing, it seems there's little difference between the two. The simulator indicated that they both had the same sensitivity (-15db) and essentially the same poor channel performance characteristics (see throughput samples below). In no case did one mode outperform the other to the point where it would make any real difference; both have the essentially the same wpm rate as well. These tests are not conclusive, but they do suggest that there may not be any real advantage in using the wide mode vs narrow under most circumstances. Of course, the simulator can only emulate the basic characteristics of the real HF channel so it would be interesting to hear from those who have compared the two on-air. Tony -K2MO CCIR-520-2 POOR CHANNEL SIMULATIONS: -11DB SNR ROS 2250 / 16 baud the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazlµog Lghe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quccirown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog Âe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fealoeumps ovahe lazEh/i ROS 500 / 16 baud the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick breFn fox juo3s over tes lazy dog the quæe t ´uls r?umps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown f Á jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dogQo
Re: [digitalradio] ROS HF Path Simulations wide vs. narrow
On 7/20/2010 3:54 PM, KH6TY wrote: Our on-air tests show that ROS 16 baud, 2200 Hz wide spread spectrum was very poor on UHF under Doppler spreading. Can you confirm this with flutter tests like Jaak has done. Skip, My path tests show that ROS is less tolerant to Doppler spread than Olivia or one of it's variants so I'd have to agree with your on-air evaluation. Throughput starts to fail as the Doppler spread is increased beyond 20Hz (two channels 2ms delay) and I suspect you could be experiencing frequency dispersions beyond that range. I haven't been able to find any propagation data that shows how much Doppler spread is likely take place on VHF/UHF. Wish I knew that answer to that. Tony -K2MO Tony, Our on-air tests show that ROS 16 baud, 2200 Hz wide spread spectrum was very poor on UHF under Doppler spreading. Can you confirm this with flutter tests like Jaak has done on http://contestia.blogspot.com/p/pathsim_09.html http://contestia.blogspot.com/p/pathsim_09.html ? 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 9:42 PM, Tony wrote: All, With all the attention ROS has been getting lately, I thought it would be interesting to see how the narrow mode compared to the wide version under the controlled environment of the HF path simulator. After a few hours of testing, it seems there's little difference between the two. The simulator indicated that they both had the same sensitivity (-15db) and essentially the same poor channel performance characteristics (see throughput samples below). In no case did one mode outperform the other to the point where it would make any real difference; both have the essentially the same wpm rate as well. These tests are not conclusive, but they do suggest that there may not be any real advantage in using the wide mode vs narrow under most circumstances. Of course, the simulator can only emulate the basic characteristics of the real HF channel so it would be interesting to hear from those who have compared the two on-air. Tony -K2MO CCIR-520-2 POOR CHANNEL SIMULATIONS: -11DB SNR ROS 2250 / 16 baud the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazlµog Lghe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quccirown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog Âe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fealoeumps ovahe lazEh/i ROS 500 / 16 baud the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick breFn fox juo3s over tes lazy dog the quæe t ´uls r?umps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown f Á jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dogQo __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5293 (20100719) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: [digitalradio] ROS vs RTTY
Well, old modes like rtty has its charm, but as the ultimate contest mode it makes more trouble for the ham community when it is flooding the hole band, than fix frequency modes like ROS. The only problem with ROS is its developer, with his strange behavior. la5vna Steinar On 18.07.2010 06:10, la7um wrote: Wow Steinar. This really tells the true story about your (and mine) love for RTTY (stoneage/museum,power wasting,polluting KW) KAANTEST MODE. TTY was created for cables, not radio, I believe. Hi. la7um Finn --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: Despite the massive criticism, this fascinating ROS guy has now released a new version of his software. http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ Sorry Buddy, but I have to admit, I find ROS more interesting than anachronistic contest mode like RTTY. la5vna Steinar On 14.07.2010 22:59, F.R. Ashley wrote: Whats so dang fantastic about ROS anyway, that it deserves pages and pages of emails about it? Remember that other new digital mode a few months ago, and how great it was, or have you forgotten abouit it already? 73 Buddy WB4M RTTY forever - Original Message - From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@... To: * Digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; * ROSDIGITALMODEMGROU rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS Returns ROS v4.7.0 Beta is out.. http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ S http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS back bigger and better !
It would appear that what is does best is the continued mutilation of horse corpses. de Curt KC8STE/AAR5VR 73 --- On Wed, 7/14/10, J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com wrote: From: J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS back bigger and better ! To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 14, 2010, 10:53 PM Your Subject says ROS is better. Where can I read about the changes and improvements? Can users control whether ROS should generate the artificial spots? Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Peter L. Jackson To: * Digitalradio Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6:37 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS back bigger and better ! Spain kicks another goal !!! v4.7.0 Beta By suggestion of CO2DC and The man of the Vara I will continue to develop ROS. A new Sked page have been linked to ROS software. http://www.ham2ham. com/room307_ ros.php Peter VK6KXW vk6...@gmail. com
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Returns
Whats so dang fantastic about ROS anyway, that it deserves pages and pages of emails about it? Remember that other new digital mode a few months ago, and how great it was, or have you forgotten abouit it already? 73 Buddy WB4M RTTY forever - Original Message - From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no To: * Digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; * ROSDIGITALMODEMGROU rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS Returns ROS v4.7.0 Beta is out.. http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ S http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Returns
What mode are you talking about? I'm interested. On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 4:59 PM, F.R. Ashley gda...@clearwire.net wrote: Whats so dang fantastic about ROS anyway, that it deserves pages and pages of emails about it? Remember that other new digital mode a few months ago, and how great it was, or have you forgotten abouit it already? 73 Buddy WB4M RTTY forever - Original Message - From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no saanes%40broadpark.no To: * Digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.comdigitalradio%40yahoogroups.com; * ROSDIGITALMODEMGROU rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.comROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS Returns ROS v4.7.0 Beta is out.. http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ S http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS back bigger and better !
Your Subject says ROS is better. Where can I read about the changes and improvements? Can users control whether ROS should generate the artificial spots? Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Peter L. Jackson To: * Digitalradio Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6:37 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS back bigger and better ! Spain kicks another goal !!! v4.7.0 Beta By suggestion of CO2DC and The man of the Vara I will continue to develop ROS. A new Sked page have been linked to ROS software. http://www.ham2ham.com/room307_ros.php Peter VK6KXW vk6...@gmail.com
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
I'm not quite sure what's going on here. Are you attacking me? I was merely stating that I see no cause for alarm and that I did not think there was anything nefarious going on. I'm a ham radio operator, of course figuring out how things work excites me. That's the whole point. To which little project are you referring to? I'm not sure I follow you. 73s James Didn't read many comic books as a kid did you? On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 9:58 AM, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: extremely wicked; nefarious schemes; a villainous plot; a villainous band of thieves I had to use Google to learn that expression. Not using it much in daily conversations. What are you trying to get to James? Why is it that trying to figure out how systems work excites you? Once I am through with this little project you might understand or perhaps not why I am doing this. 73 Rein W6SZ I had to use Google to learn that expression. -Original Message- From: James Hall hall.jam...@gmail.com hall.jamesr%40gmail.com Sent: Jul 8, 2010 4:00 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC Looks like this is a DX Cluster server available on the Internet running a software package called DXSpider. http://wiki.dxcluster.org/index.php/Main_Page Doesn't seem to be nefarious at all to me. Telnet in, give your callsign and it'll start giving you info. I have no clue how to read this but there it is. On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.nosaanes%40broadpark.no 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: login: GET / HTTP/1.1 Host: 90.225.73.203:8000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; nb-NO; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: nb,no;q=0.8,nn;q=0.6,en-us;q=0.4,en;q=0.2 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Keep-Alive: 115 Connection: keep-alive Sorry GET / HTTP/1.1 is an invalid callsign - Then try to type c:telnet 90.225.73.203 8000 , then you will see that this is TELNET and that explains the funny call sings . Whe people is bande in this software whey are using a fake call sign . This fake call sign is the sent to the cluster when people is in RX mode. I hope this is understandable . LA5VNA Steinar On 08.07.2010 20:53, Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Rein After reading your mail about ROS and the HamSpots , I have done some testing. I have monitored the activity of the latest ROS v4.5.7 in RX mode. I have been using Process Explorer from Sysinternals (microsoft) .With The Process Explorer you have the possibility to see the network activity in real time . What I fount out was that the ADIFdata2 module in ROS was trying to connect to the address: 90.225.73.203, 217.31.161.71,8 or 217.31.161.34.50 on port 8000 and sending data from my computer. LA5VNA Steinar On 08.07.2010 05:20, Rein A wrote: Thank you, Laurei: Where Do The Spots Come From? 08-Jul-2010 14:45utc There has been much internet speculation that HamSpots gets the ROS spots directly from the ROS Software. This is INCORRECT. ROS spots are retrieved from the DX Cluster ONLY. This site has no relationship with the ROS software or its developer. HamSpots maintains a private dedicated Cluster Node and processes all incoming spots to that node to determine the mode being used (ROS, PSK, RTTY, SSTV, HELL, etc.) to display correctly on the individual Mode Pages. HamSpots also takes direct feeds from the PSKReporter Network (thanks to N1DQ) and the JT65 Reverse Beacon Network (thanks to W6CQZ). 73 Rein, W6SZ
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
Hello James Hall, Why not using your call here? But that's OK. I was not attacking you nor anybody else. It is not part of my amateur radio experience or fun. You were attacking me or? Thick skin here. I was with the xyl to a concert yesterday and not behind this computer. Over the last couple of months, I have been trying to understand why I can not use the ROS software like many others outside the US. It seems I have not enough brains. +++ There is no agenda here, pro digital mode xx, anti digital mode ROS. ++ I believe scaring a nice person, suggesting him to ask the FCC about ROS, was part of that anti ROS agenda! I still do not understand the issue. In that process I tried over and over to get the author of that program to apologize to the amateurs he did hurt, write a paper about ROS with the US regulations in mind, inform the appropriate people in the FCC, Again apologize for what he did or give an explanation. Who to contact in the FCC, I think I could help him with that perhaps. In that process I have been lectured attacked for being on this reflector or the other one and I made the mistake at times to engage. defend, explain myself. I hope you and others here, believe that. I hope you James Hall reads this. If you are a technical person and interested seriously in legality issues of ROS. I welcome you here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rosmodemusa/ Not very popular just 18 subscribers ( almost 4000 here ) 73 Rein W6SZ http://www.nitehawk.com/rasmit/ -Original Message- From: James Hall hall.jam...@gmail.com Sent: Jul 9, 2010 11:09 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC I'm not quite sure what's going on here. Are you attacking me? I was merely stating that I see no cause for alarm and that I did not think there was anything nefarious going on. I'm a ham radio operator, of course figuring out how things work excites me. That's the whole point. To which little project are you referring to? I'm not sure I follow you. 73s James Didn't read many comic books as a kid did you? On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 9:58 AM, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: extremely wicked; nefarious schemes; a villainous plot; a villainous band of thieves I had to use Google to learn that expression. Not using it much in daily conversations. What are you trying to get to James? Why is it that trying to figure out how systems work excites you? Once I am through with this little project you might understand or perhaps not why I am doing this. 73 Rein W6SZ I had to use Google to learn that expression. -Original Message- From: James Hall hall.jam...@gmail.com hall.jamesr%40gmail.com Sent: Jul 8, 2010 4:00 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC Looks like this is a DX Cluster server available on the Internet running a software package called DXSpider. http://wiki.dxcluster.org/index.php/Main_Page Doesn't seem to be nefarious at all to me. Telnet in, give your callsign and it'll start giving you info. I have no clue how to read this but there it is. On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.nosaanes%40broadpark.no 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: login: GET / HTTP/1.1 Host: 90.225.73.203:8000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; nb-NO; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: nb,no;q=0.8,nn;q=0.6,en-us;q=0.4,en;q=0.2 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Keep-Alive: 115 Connection: keep-alive Sorry GET / HTTP/1.1 is an invalid callsign - Then try to type c:telnet 90.225.73.203 8000 , then you will see that this is TELNET and that explains the funny call sings . Whe people is bande in this software whey are using a fake call sign . This fake call sign is the sent to the cluster when people is in RX mode. I hope this is understandable . LA5VNA Steinar On 08.07.2010 20:53, Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Rein After reading your mail about ROS and the HamSpots , I have done some testing. I have monitored the activity of the latest ROS v4.5.7 in RX mode. I have been using Process Explorer from Sysinternals (microsoft) .With The Process Explorer you have the possibility to see the network activity in real time . What I fount out was that the ADIFdata2 module in ROS was trying to connect to the address: 90.225.73.203, 217.31.161.71,8 or 217.31.161.34.50 on port 8000
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Developer will continue to auto-spot despite complaints
Just goes to show that he reads the boards and keeps track of what is going on. Now, how easy would it be to program a button to disable the function with one toggle in the software? Very easy! Then he could open it to everyone to decide whether they want the reporting or not. Since he won't allow this, and says take it or leave it, one must truly question what else it does or can do. Dave K3DCW On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Laurie, VK3AMA group...@vkdxer.com wrote: from his website http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/ros-and-cluster/ Jose says... ROS uses a system that send reports to the DX Cluster automatically. This is useful to know who are listen you and the system is done so as not to saturate the cluster (only send some spot). If you are not agree with this function that help to the communication, don’t use ROS software. Interpret that as you want. de Laurie, VK3AMA http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net Real radio bounces off of the sky
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Developer will continue to auto-spot despite complaints
With this action (or inaction) from Mr ROS and considering all of his past actions/comments it becomes clear (to me) that he has an agenda and Hams are being used as beta-testers to help fulfil his ultimate goal. He has shown several times an unwillingness to embrace Ham Spirit and Ham Operating Standards. His Agenda? I suspect it is commercial in nature. My thoughts. de Laurie, VK3AMA On 11/07/2010 9:17 AM, Dave Wright wrote: Just goes to show that he reads the boards and keeps track of what is going on. Now, how easy would it be to program a button to disable the function with one toggle in the software? Very easy! Then he could open it to everyone to decide whether they want the reporting or not. Since he won't allow this, and says take it or leave it, one must truly question what else it does or can do. Dave K3DCW On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Laurie, VK3AMA group...@vkdxer.com mailto:group...@vkdxer.com wrote: from his website http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/ros-and-cluster/ Jose says... ROS uses a system that send reports to the DX Cluster automatically. This is useful to know who are listen you and the system is done so as not to saturate the cluster (only send some spot). If you are not agree with this function that help to the communication, don’t use ROS software. Interpret that as you want. de Laurie, VK3AMA http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net http://www.k3dcw.net Real radio bounces off of the sky http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links * 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] ROS are sending data from your PC
Looks like this is a DX Cluster server available on the Internet running a software package called DXSpider. http://wiki.dxcluster.org/index.php/Main_Page Doesn't seem to be nefarious at all to me. Telnet in, give your callsign and it'll start giving you info. I have no clue how to read this but there it is. On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.nowrote: 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: login: GET / HTTP/1.1 Host: 90.225.73.203:8000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; nb-NO; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: nb,no;q=0.8,nn;q=0.6,en-us;q=0.4,en;q=0.2 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Keep-Alive: 115 Connection: keep-alive Sorry GET / HTTP/1.1 is an invalid callsign - Then try to type c:telnet 90.225.73.203 8000 , then you will see that this is TELNET and that explains the funny call sings . Whe people is bande in this software whey are using a fake call sign . This fake call sign is the sent to the cluster when people is in RX mode. I hope this is understandable . LA5VNA Steinar On 08.07.2010 20:53, Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Rein After reading your mail about ROS and the HamSpots , I have done some testing. I have monitored the activity of the latest ROS v4.5.7 in RX mode. I have been using Process Explorer from Sysinternals (microsoft) .With The Process Explorer you have the possibility to see the network activity in real time . What I fount out was that the ADIFdata2 module in ROS was trying to connect to the address: 90.225.73.203, 217.31.161.71,8 or 217.31.161.34.50 on port 8000 and sending data from my computer. LA5VNA Steinar On 08.07.2010 05:20, Rein A wrote: Thank you, Laurei: Where Do The Spots Come From? 08-Jul-2010 14:45utc There has been much internet speculation that HamSpots gets the ROS spots directly from the ROS Software. This is INCORRECT. ROS spots are retrieved from the DX Cluster ONLY. This site has no relationship with the ROS software or its developer. HamSpots maintains a private dedicated Cluster Node and processes all incoming spots to that node to determine the mode being used (ROS, PSK, RTTY, SSTV, HELL, etc.) to display correctly on the individual Mode Pages. HamSpots also takes direct feeds from the PSKReporter Network (thanks to N1DQ) and the JT65 Reverse Beacon Network (thanks to W6CQZ). 73 Rein, W6SZ
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
extremely wicked; nefarious schemes; a villainous plot; a villainous band of thieves I had to use Google to learn that expression. Not using it much in daily conversations. What are you trying to get to James? Why is it that trying to figure out how systems work excites you? Once I am through with this little project you might understand or perhaps not why I am doing this. 73 Rein W6SZ I had to use Google to learn that expression. -Original Message- From: James Hall hall.jam...@gmail.com Sent: Jul 8, 2010 4:00 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC Looks like this is a DX Cluster server available on the Internet running a software package called DXSpider. http://wiki.dxcluster.org/index.php/Main_Page Doesn't seem to be nefarious at all to me. Telnet in, give your callsign and it'll start giving you info. I have no clue how to read this but there it is. On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.nowrote: 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: login: GET / HTTP/1.1 Host: 90.225.73.203:8000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; nb-NO; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: nb,no;q=0.8,nn;q=0.6,en-us;q=0.4,en;q=0.2 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Keep-Alive: 115 Connection: keep-alive Sorry GET / HTTP/1.1 is an invalid callsign - Then try to type c:telnet 90.225.73.203 8000 , then you will see that this is TELNET and that explains the funny call sings . Whe people is bande in this software whey are using a fake call sign . This fake call sign is the sent to the cluster when people is in RX mode. I hope this is understandable . LA5VNA Steinar On 08.07.2010 20:53, Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Rein After reading your mail about ROS and the HamSpots , I have done some testing. I have monitored the activity of the latest ROS v4.5.7 in RX mode. I have been using Process Explorer from Sysinternals (microsoft) .With The Process Explorer you have the possibility to see the network activity in real time . What I fount out was that the ADIFdata2 module in ROS was trying to connect to the address: 90.225.73.203, 217.31.161.71,8 or 217.31.161.34.50 on port 8000 and sending data from my computer. LA5VNA Steinar On 08.07.2010 05:20, Rein A wrote: Thank you, Laurei: Where Do The Spots Come From? 08-Jul-2010 14:45utc There has been much internet speculation that HamSpots gets the ROS spots directly from the ROS Software. This is INCORRECT. ROS spots are retrieved from the DX Cluster ONLY. This site has no relationship with the ROS software or its developer. HamSpots maintains a private dedicated Cluster Node and processes all incoming spots to that node to determine the mode being used (ROS, PSK, RTTY, SSTV, HELL, etc.) to display correctly on the individual Mode Pages. HamSpots also takes direct feeds from the PSKReporter Network (thanks to N1DQ) and the JT65 Reverse Beacon Network (thanks to W6CQZ). 73 Rein, W6SZ
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
At 08:58 AM 7/9/2010, you wrote: extremely wicked; nefarious schemes; a villainous plot; a villainous band of thieves Rein are you trying to tell us that NONE of this never happened ? The list of banned, and other thing that have been posted that this program has been said to do. This program is doing a lot more then we have been told. And it seems to me (as well as others) the we may never know just what it is doing. The HAM community dose need this.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
HI John Let me make a few things clear. First and foremost I was rejected as a subscriber of the official list! At the time I was not aware of the some 150 messages on the QRZ.com about ROS, its author and the rest. A big eyeopener! If Jose has calls hardwired in a list prohibiting amateurs using his software and want to promote his package ( and he does ) he can only be classified as insane. The biggest problem between Jose and myself is about the difference between the FCC and the ARRL. If I send him info about other modes he translates that as being anti ROS, He is crazy but it really does not matter too much for me. From the beginning I thought that the author's lack of a few basic human properties was creating a lot of misunderstanding and I tried to defend Jose. In that process I was warned by unnamed people with official functions in the US ( like publishing a radio amateur newsletter and the IARU ) to stay away form this ROS mass because it would only cause me problems OK you and I exchanged emails about being prohibited using the ROS software I tried to help you, you thanked me but did not answer my final question! So I know just about every thingthere is to know about this going all the way back to the story about the agent 3040 I think the number was and Tim N3... We, as radio amateurs are using hardware and software and what have you produced by others that most of the time we know little or nothing about It does not really make much difference for me whether I know much about those that had something to do with what I am playing with. Do I like Bill Gates? Some engineer in Japan? And so on. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net Sent: Jul 9, 2010 12:08 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC At 08:58 AM 7/9/2010, you wrote: extremely wicked; nefarious schemes; a villainous plot; a villainous band of thieves Rein are you trying to tell us that NONE of this never happened ? The list of banned, and other thing that have been posted that this program has been said to do. This program is doing a lot more then we have been told. And it seems to me (as well as others) the we may never know just what it is doing. The HAM community dose need this. http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
Sorry Rein - Please forgive as that was about the time I was having big time computer problems. Lost a bunch of emails. what was that my final question again. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
OK John. Understood. Did it work on your computer? Did it work on the xyl's computer? ( I like to know whether there is such a list in the program.) If there is, then I think it is a hopeless case. And NOBODY should use ROS. NOBODY, foreign or domestic. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net Sent: Jul 9, 2010 1:14 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC Sorry Rein - Please forgive as that was about the time I was having big time computer problems. Lost a bunch of emails. what was that my final question again. John, W0JAB http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
Could this ROS discussion be taken offline or elsewhere? I expect others, like I, are sick of the rehashing. (And if you are sick please don't reply in support of this message - that would be as bad as the rehashing.) Andy?? - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD http://mysticlakesoftware.com/ -Original Message- From: rein...@ix.netcom.com [mailto:rein...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 12:43 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC OK John. Understood. Did it work on your computer? Did it work on the xyl's computer? ( I like to know whether there is such a list in the program.) If there is, then I think it is a hopeless case. And NOBODY should use ROS. NOBODY, foreign or domestic. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net Sent: Jul 9, 2010 1:14 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC Sorry Rein - Please forgive as that was about the time I was having big time computer problems. Lost a bunch of emails. what was that my final question again. John, W0JAB http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
After loading a updated version as he said that everyone needed to do. After entering my call it would not work. Just like others have posted that they could no longer use it. I have not tried it again and will not try it. Touch a hot stove and get burned one will not touch it again. I will never try ROS again. I did not try it on the XYL's and will not. At 12:43 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote: OK John. Understood. Did it work on your computer? Did it work on the xyl's computer? ( I like to know whether there is such a list in the program.) If there is, then I think it is a hopeless case. And NOBODY should use ROS. NOBODY, foreign or domestic. 73 Rein W6SZ
RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
I think many would like to have a answer once and for all on this issue if some have been banned from using the software. John, W0JAB digitalradio co moderator At 12:54 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote: Could this ROS discussion be taken offline or elsewhere? I expect others, like I, are sick of the rehashing. (And if you are sick please don't reply in support of this message - that would be as bad as the rehashing.) Andy?? - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD http://mysticlakesoftware.com/
RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
John, Who is Andy, K3UK? I was told a few days ago by a moderator ( I think ) that we could discuss ROS on this board. For those who don't like it, they can use the erase button. 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. Though this is not an US matter at all, I think you are welcome here. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rosmodemusa/ 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net Sent: Jul 9, 2010 2:18 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC I think many would like to have a answer once and for all on this issue if some have been banned from using the software. John, W0JAB digitalradio co moderator At 12:54 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote: Could this ROS discussion be taken offline or elsewhere? I expect others, like I, are sick of the rehashing. (And if you are sick please don't reply in support of this message - that would be as bad as the rehashing.) Andy?? - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD http://mysticlakesoftware.com/ http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
John, Why not give it a serious try? It's is worth getting to the bottom of this or perhaps not, Are we all becoming zombies? You are sort of accusing the author without really trying or proof. Some 3000 People on this reflector. Silence, silence. There has to be many on this board that can answer that question. If you do not want to show who you are. contact me of the reflector I will keep your input just between you and me. Don't want to be involved. Please let me just play. I am tired, don't bother me 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net Sent: Jul 9, 2010 2:18 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC I think many would like to have a answer once and for all on this issue if some have been banned from using the software. John, W0JAB digitalradio co moderator At 12:54 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote: Could this ROS discussion be taken offline or elsewhere? I expect others, like I, are sick of the rehashing. (And if you are sick please don't reply in support of this message - that would be as bad as the rehashing.) Andy?? - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD http://mysticlakesoftware.com/ http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
At 01:44 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote: John, Who is Andy, K3UK? Andy is the list owner. And yes anyone can discuss ROS at any point and time. And many are still looking for an answer of why some (at one point or another) was banned from using the program. Now you seem to be a spokesperson for Jose on ROS so why no answer? John, W0JAB
RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
US operators that avoid ROS because it is illegal in the US are not zombies, they are simply abiding by the regulations that govern amateur radio operation here and thus protecting their licenses. The immature antics of Jose Ros are most likely the result of an over-driven ego untempered by any understanding of the social aspects of amateur radio. Hopefully, some wise Elmer will take Jose in hand and help him grow up to more constructively apply his obvious technical talent. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 2:59 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC John, Why not give it a serious try? It's is worth getting to the bottom of this or perhaps not, Are we all becoming zombies? You are sort of accusing the author without really trying or proof. Some 3000 People on this reflector. Silence, silence. There has to be many on this board that can answer that question. If you do not want to show who you are. contact me of the reflector I will keep your input just between you and me. Don't want to be involved. Please let me just play. I am tired, don't bother me 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net Sent: Jul 9, 2010 2:18 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC I think many would like to have a answer once and for all on this issue if some have been banned from using the software. John, W0JAB digitalradio co moderator At 12:54 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote: Could this ROS discussion be taken offline or elsewhere? I expect others, like I, are sick of the rehashing. (And if you are sick please don't reply in support of this message - that would be as bad as the rehashing.) Andy?? - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD http://mysticlakesoftware.com/ http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
The discussion of the persona-non-grata list was started here: http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742highlight=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, rein...@ix.netcom.com 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
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
Given the author's animosity toward certain hams, the fact that he stated he was doing a persona non grata list, the fact that he DID do a list, and his propensity to be untruthful in general, I would be VERY hesitant to install his software on my computer! Even more so if I was on his list! It's been established that his software is doing things he isn't telling people about ( the call reporting ) and that can't be turned off! He isn't a ham! He doesn't understand the ham community and doesn't make any effort to do so. He's deliberately hardcoding calling frequencies into his software and in some cases multiple frequencies in crowded bands. I don't know about YOU, but to me this ALL adds up to a VERY BAD picture. As for the 3000 people that are being quiet on this list, how much of that is that they don't want to be singled out by a psychotic non-ham software author for inclusion in his list?? His software is illegal for a significant portion of the ham community to use below 1.5m, yet he insists on pushing that use of his software? Sorry, I was interested initially in ROS, but given all of the above and all the rest that hasn't been stated in this msg, I'll probably be the last one to try his software AFTER everyone else has survived! 73, Jeff - Original Message - From: rein...@ix.netcom.com John, Why not give it a serious try? It's is worth getting to the bottom of this or perhaps not, Are we all becoming zombies? You are sort of accusing the author without really trying or proof. Some 3000 People on this reflector. Silence, silence. There has to be many on this board that can answer that question. If you do not want to show who you are. contact me of the reflector I will keep your input just between you and me. Don't want to be involved. Please let me just play. I am tired, don't bother me 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net Sent: Jul 9, 2010 2:18 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC I think many would like to have a answer once and for all on this issue if some have been banned from using the software. John, W0JAB digitalradio co moderator At 12:54 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote: Could this ROS discussion be taken offline or elsewhere? I expect others, like I, are sick of the rehashing. (And if you are sick please don't reply in support of this message - that would be as bad as the rehashing.) Andy?? - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD http://mysticlakesoftware.com/
RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John Becker, WOJAB Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 3:01 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC And many are still looking for an answer of why some (at one point or another) was banned from using the program. John, no one but Jose knows why specific ops were banned from using his application. Empirically, one ham was added to the persona non grata list shortly after posting that he had asked the FCC whether or not ROS was legal. My callsign appeared on the list after I sought to verify with FCC personnel the claim on Jose's blog that the FCC had approved ROS for use by US amateurs -- a claim the FCC characterizes as both false and fabricated. Perhaps my promotion was motivated by some earlier perceived infraction, but its entirely irrelevant because ROS is not legal for use by US operators; it's like being put on the no use of aviation frequencies list. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 12:47:51PM -0700, Jeff Moore wrote: As for the 3000 people that are being quiet on this list, how much of that is that they don't want to be singled out by a psychotic non-ham software author for inclusion in his list?? This is my first -- and, I hope, my last -- post on ROS. I've been quiet because it became apparent to me quite early in the game that the software was spread-spectrum within the meaning of the term as the FCC understands it. The author demonstrated quite early in the game that he wasn't a ham and didn't understand the sense of community that we hams, as a group, demonstrate and display more often than not; he also demonstrated through his blacklisting that he is vindictive, which is not conducive to his establishing a record of trust. Now it has been shown beyond contradiction that his software posts notices on one or more DX Cluster nodes; I haven't installed the software and so can't see where the controls, if any, for this behavior are located, but I do see users indicating that there are no controls for the reporting behavior. That's inexcusable, if it's true. Likewise, if this reporting behavior isn't advertised in the documentation, *that* is inexcusable as well. All this is in addition to the HF beaconing behavior, the very high ratio of bandwidth to baudrate, and other technical objections. I wash my hands of ROS, both the software and its author. I'll have naught to do with it. But this is an appropriate forum for discussion of the software, especially by amateur radio operators in venues where its use is legal, so I won't voice any objections to that. I may unsubscribe if things get too silly and Andy doesn't throttle them; that's just voting with my feet. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mi...@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin
RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
Hi Dave, Let me ask your a question after assuring that the use of ROS world wide is increasing rapidly. We can ignore that, as most do, we can be mad about it, we can as US licensed radio amateurs say it does not concern us,it is not fair, etc etc. If there is such a list, I plan to make a real big stink about it. I am disappointed that John as a potential member on the list, does not want to research that. But then I can't force people. Have plenty idea;'s about doing that. But before starting such an action I like to know whether such a list still exists or not. Is that unreal? I tried to contact the ARRL just a few minutes ago and was given a go around, from one phone number to another, 20 minutes waiting. Friday afternoon in CT, with the Executive Chief Officer out of the country? Do not want to start here a flame war on the ARRL. But is this not the place to discuss issues related to digital modes? A digital mode with a list of banned calls? 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com Sent: Jul 9, 2010 3:52 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John Becker, WOJAB Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 3:01 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC And many are still looking for an answer of why some (at one point or another) was banned from using the program. John, no one but Jose knows why specific ops were banned from using his application. Empirically, one ham was added to the persona non grata list shortly after posting that he had asked the FCC whether or not ROS was legal. My callsign appeared on the list after I sought to verify with FCC personnel the claim on Jose's blog that the FCC had approved ROS for use by US amateurs -- a claim the FCC characterizes as both false and fabricated. Perhaps my promotion was motivated by some earlier perceived infraction, but its entirely irrelevant because ROS is not legal for use by US operators; it's like being put on the no use of aviation frequencies list. 73, Dave, AA6YQ http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
Hi Mike, No problem whatsoever and thank you for expressing your opinion. In spite of not willing to post on ROS anymore, are you on the list? Email me direct if you have concrete indications or proof. Can not talk for other members here. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: mikea mi...@mikea.ath.cx Sent: Jul 9, 2010 4:11 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 12:47:51PM -0700, Jeff Moore wrote: As for the 3000 people that are being quiet on this list, how much of that is that they don't want to be singled out by a psychotic non-ham software author for inclusion in his list?? This is my first -- and, I hope, my last -- post on ROS. I've been quiet because it became apparent to me quite early in the game that the software was spread-spectrum within the meaning of the term as the FCC understands it. The author demonstrated quite early in the game that he wasn't a ham and didn't understand the sense of community that we hams, as a group, demonstrate and display more often than not; he also demonstrated through his blacklisting that he is vindictive, which is not conducive to his establishing a record of trust. Now it has been shown beyond contradiction that his software posts notices on one or more DX Cluster nodes; I haven't installed the software and so can't see where the controls, if any, for this behavior are located, but I do see users indicating that there are no controls for the reporting behavior. That's inexcusable, if it's true. Likewise, if this reporting behavior isn't advertised in the documentation, *that* is inexcusable as well. All this is in addition to the HF beaconing behavior, the very high ratio of bandwidth to baudrate, and other technical objections. I wash my hands of ROS, both the software and its author. I'll have naught to do with it. But this is an appropriate forum for discussion of the software, especially by amateur radio operators in venues where its use is legal, so I won't voice any objections to that. I may unsubscribe if things get too silly and Andy doesn't throttle them; that's just voting with my feet. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mi...@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
Hi Jeff, Thanks for your contribution, No problem and the truth. Could you inform me about the hardcoding of the calling frequencies. Does he eliminate the VFO setting of your transmitter? Or perhaps CAT settings? Please address this issue, again feel free to contact me off this board. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail.com Sent: Jul 9, 2010 3:47 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC Given the author's animosity toward certain hams, the fact that he stated he was doing a persona non grata list, the fact that he DID do a list, and his propensity to be untruthful in general, I would be VERY hesitant to install his software on my computer! Even more so if I was on his list! It's been established that his software is doing things he isn't telling people about ( the call reporting ) and that can't be turned off! He isn't a ham! He doesn't understand the ham community and doesn't make any effort to do so. He's deliberately hardcoding calling frequencies into his software and in some cases multiple frequencies in crowded bands. I don't know about YOU, but to me this ALL adds up to a VERY BAD picture. As for the 3000 people that are being quiet on this list, how much of that is that they don't want to be singled out by a psychotic non-ham software author for inclusion in his list?? His software is illegal for a significant portion of the ham community to use below 1.5m, yet he insists on pushing that use of his software? Sorry, I was interested initially in ROS, but given all of the above and all the rest that hasn't been stated in this msg, I'll probably be the last one to try his software AFTER everyone else has survived! 73, Jeff - Original Message - From: rein...@ix.netcom.com John, Why not give it a serious try? It's is worth getting to the bottom of this or perhaps not, Are we all becoming zombies? You are sort of accusing the author without really trying or proof. Some 3000 People on this reflector. Silence, silence. There has to be many on this board that can answer that question. If you do not want to show who you are. contact me of the reflector I will keep your input just between you and me. Don't want to be involved. Please let me just play. I am tired, don't bother me 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net Sent: Jul 9, 2010 2:18 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC I think many would like to have a answer once and for all on this issue if some have been banned from using the software. John, W0JAB digitalradio co moderator At 12:54 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote: Could this ROS discussion be taken offline or elsewhere? I expect others, like I, are sick of the rehashing. (And if you are sick please don't reply in support of this message - that would be as bad as the rehashing.) Andy?? - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD http://mysticlakesoftware.com/
RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 4:31 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC Hi Dave, Let me ask your a question after assuring that the use of ROS world wide is increasing rapidly. We can ignore that, as most do, we can be mad about it, we can as US licensed radio amateurs say it does not concern us,it is not fair, etc etc. If there is such a list, I plan to make a real big stink about it. I am disappointed that John as a potential member on the list, does not want to research that. But then I can't force people. Have plenty idea;'s about doing that. But before starting such an action I like to know whether such a list still exists or not. Is that unreal? I don't know what you mean by unreal, but it's certainly a waste of time as far as you, W0JAB, or I am concerned. US operators can't use ROS on HF whether they're on the list or not. I tried to contact the ARRL just a few minutes ago and was given a go around, from one phone number to another, 20 minutes waiting. Friday afternoon in CT, with the Executive Chief Officer out of the country? Given that it represents the interests of US operators, you'll have a difficult time convincing the ARRL to do anything about a mode that US operators can't use on HF anyway. The IARU would be the more appropriate organization with which to raise this issue. Do not want to start here a flame war on the ARRL. But is this not the place to discuss issues related to digital modes? Yes it is. A digital mode with a list of banned calls? Certainly, though of course Andy K3UK has the last word on this. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
Hi John, Are you addressing this to me? How am I the spokesman of Jose? What more can I say about Jose to please some of you. What answer do you expect from me John? What I do say though is this: His not being an amateur A severe language problem. Little or none social behavior did contribute significantly to this circus. If you classify that as being a spokesman, OK what can I write more. I am still waiting for someone telling me that he has proof that he is on such a list. Using a recent version. Don't blame anyone saying Just the fact that there ever was such a list is enough etc etc At the same time I can not understand that hundreds of people using ROS now ignore this if they knew about such a list. This very point really goes beyond my capacities. I am addressing here non US amateurs in particular. I guess there are those on this reflector? 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net Sent: Jul 9, 2010 3:01 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC At 01:44 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote: John, Who is Andy, K3UK? Andy is the list owner. And yes anyone can discuss ROS at any point and time. And many are still looking for an answer of why some (at one point or another) was banned from using the program. Now you seem to be a spokesperson for Jose on ROS so why no answer? John, W0JAB http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
Dave, I have no answer here for what you are saying. It is clear, I don't see it that way I tried to get info from the ARRL not directly related to the ROS matter. Do not want to discuss that here further. I am happy to address it off the reflector, you could well be able to help me with the info I am looking for. John is familiar with the legality issue by now, I think. Yes indeed IARU is for sure one of those organizations. There are others though closer to Jose http://www.iaru.org/ http://www.iaru.org/iaru-soc.html http://www.ure.es/ Amateur Radio newsletters in US and abroad. I brought up the DSTAR case, ( we are not into that, no reaction here ) and got an invitation to from the list moderator to join their Yahoo listthis morning. Why don't you just do that and let us alone in rest and peace ) 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com Sent: Jul 9, 2010 5:16 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 4:31 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC Hi Dave, Let me ask your a question after assuring that the use of ROS world wide is increasing rapidly. We can ignore that, as most do, we can be mad about it, we can as US licensed radio amateurs say it does not concern us,it is not fair, etc etc. If there is such a list, I plan to make a real big stink about it. I am disappointed that John as a potential member on the list, does not want to research that. But then I can't force people. Have plenty idea;'s about doing that. But before starting such an action I like to know whether such a list still exists or not. Is that unreal? I don't know what you mean by unreal, but it's certainly a waste of time as far as you, W0JAB, or I am concerned. US operators can't use ROS on HF whether they're on the list or not. I tried to contact the ARRL just a few minutes ago and was given a go around, from one phone number to another, 20 minutes waiting. Friday afternoon in CT, with the Executive Chief Officer out of the country? Given that it represents the interests of US operators, you'll have a difficult time convincing the ARRL to do anything about a mode that US operators can't use on HF anyway. The IARU would be the more appropriate organization with which to raise this issue. Do not want to start here a flame war on the ARRL. But is this not the place to discuss issues related to digital modes? Yes it is. A digital mode with a list of banned calls? Certainly, though of course Andy K3UK has the last word on this. 73, Dave, AA6YQ http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
Hello Steinar, Are you telling me that people are sending those calls to the cluster and then from there end up at the HAMSPOTS site, and never actually use those calls in transmissions? Just noticed a call sign from somebody, some 25 miles from here, logged on the Twente WEBSDR! 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no Sent: Jul 8, 2010 3:28 PM To: * Digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC 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: login: GET / HTTP/1.1 Host: 90.225.73.203:8000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; nb-NO; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: nb,no;q=0.8,nn;q=0.6,en-us;q=0.4,en;q=0.2 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Keep-Alive: 115 Connection: keep-alive Sorry GET / HTTP/1.1 is an invalid callsign - Then try to type c:telnet 90.225.73.203 8000 , then you will see that this is TELNET and that explains the funny call sings . Whe people is bande in this software whey are using a fake call sign . This fake call sign is the sent to the cluster when people is in RX mode. I hope this is understandable . LA5VNA Steinar On 08.07.2010 20:53, Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Rein After reading your mail about ROS and the HamSpots , I have done some testing. I have monitored the activity of the latest ROS v4.5.7 in RX mode. I have been using Process Explorer from Sysinternals (microsoft) .With The Process Explorer you have the possibility to see the network activity in real time . What I fount out was that the ADIFdata2 module in ROS was trying to connect to the address: 90.225.73.203, 217.31.161.71,8 or 217.31.161.34.50 on port 8000 and sending data from my computer. LA5VNA Steinar On 08.07.2010 05:20, Rein A wrote: Thank you, Laurei: Where Do The Spots Come From? 08-Jul-2010 14:45utc There has been much internet speculation that HamSpots gets the ROS spots directly from the ROS Software. This is INCORRECT. ROS spots are retrieved from the DX Cluster ONLY. This site has no relationship with the ROS software or its developer. HamSpots maintains a private dedicated Cluster Node and processes all incoming spots to that node to determine the mode being used (ROS, PSK, RTTY, SSTV, HELL, etc.) to display correctly on the individual Mode Pages. HamSpots also takes direct feeds from the PSKReporter Network (thanks to N1DQ) and the JT65 Reverse Beacon Network (thanks to W6CQZ). 73 Rein, W6SZ http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
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?
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
Steinar, Sorry, my answer messages are getting out with too much delay So the logical sequence gets lost. 73 Rein W6SZ Group Owner Note: Rein...your last two messages were idetified by Yahoo as spam, not sure why. Andy K3UK -Original Message- From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no Sent: Jul 8, 2010 4:25 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC Yes , that is what is seems to me Rein. Let me try to explain the in my Norwegian English. Lest assume you are on mister ROS's hate list, but what to test the software i RX mod. You are using a fake call sign to get the software is working. When you are starting the software it connect it self to a cluster via telnet using the fake call sing, and all your logging are sent to the cluster. la5vna Steinar On 08.07.2010 22:04, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Hello Steinar, Are you telling me that people are sending those calls to the cluster and then from there end up at the HAMSPOTS site, and never actually use those calls in transmissions? Just noticed a call sign from somebody, some 25 miles from here, logged on the Twente WEBSDR! 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no Sent: Jul 8, 2010 3:28 PM To: * Digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC 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: login: GET / HTTP/1.1 Host: 90.225.73.203:8000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; nb-NO; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: nb,no;q=0.8,nn;q=0.6,en-us;q=0.4,en;q=0.2 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Keep-Alive: 115 Connection: keep-alive Sorry GET / HTTP/1.1 is an invalid callsign - Then try to type c:telnet 90.225.73.203 8000 , then you will see that this is TELNET and that explains the funny call sings . Whe people is bande in this software whey are using a fake call sign . This fake call sign is the sent to the cluster when people is in RX mode. I hope this is understandable . LA5VNA Steinar On 08.07.2010 20:53, Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Rein After reading your mail about ROS and the HamSpots , I have done some testing. I have monitored the activity of the latest ROS v4.5.7 in RX mode. I have been using Process Explorer from Sysinternals (microsoft) .With The Process Explorer you have the possibility to see the network activity in real time . What I fount out was that the ADIFdata2 module in ROS was trying to connect to the address: 90.225.73.203, 217.31.161.71,8 or 217.31.161.34.50 on port 8000 and sending data from my computer. LA5VNA Steinar On 08.07.2010 05:20, Rein A wrote: Thank you, Laurei: Where Do The Spots Come From? 08-Jul-2010 14:45utc There has been much internet speculation that HamSpots gets the ROS spots directly from the ROS Software. This is INCORRECT. ROS spots are retrieved from the DX Cluster ONLY. This site has no relationship with the ROS software or its developer. HamSpots maintains a private dedicated Cluster Node and processes all incoming spots to that node to determine the mode being used (ROS, PSK, RTTY, SSTV, HELL, etc.) to display correctly on the individual Mode Pages. HamSpots also takes direct feeds from the PSKReporter Network (thanks to N1DQ) and the JT65 Reverse Beacon Network (thanks to W6CQZ). 73 Rein, W6SZ http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
Here are some US calls appearing over the last couple of hours on HAMSPOTS: Injected via TELNET or other. KN6V KE5AKG K3ML W7YW KR6E KI6JL for more or no info on these callsigns per official FCC records see http://www.qrz.com/db/?cmd=1 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no Sent: Jul 8, 2010 4:25 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC Yes , that is what is seems to me Rein. Let me try to explain the in my Norwegian English. Lest assume you are on mister ROS's hate list, but what to test the software i RX mod. You are using a fake call sign to get the software is working. When you are starting the software it connect it self to a cluster via telnet using the fake call sing, and all your logging are sent to the cluster. la5vna Steinar On 08.07.2010 22:04, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Hello Steinar, Are you telling me that people are sending those calls to the cluster and then from there end up at the HAMSPOTS site, and never actually use those calls in transmissions? Just noticed a call sign from somebody, some 25 miles from here, logged on the Twente WEBSDR! 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no Sent: Jul 8, 2010 3:28 PM To: * Digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC 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: login: GET / HTTP/1.1 Host: 90.225.73.203:8000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; nb-NO; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: nb,no;q=0.8,nn;q=0.6,en-us;q=0.4,en;q=0.2 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Keep-Alive: 115 Connection: keep-alive Sorry GET / HTTP/1.1 is an invalid callsign - Then try to type c:telnet 90.225.73.203 8000 , then you will see that this is TELNET and that explains the funny call sings . Whe people is bande in this software whey are using a fake call sign . This fake call sign is the sent to the cluster when people is in RX mode. I hope this is understandable . LA5VNA Steinar On 08.07.2010 20:53, Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Rein After reading your mail about ROS and the HamSpots , I have done some testing. I have monitored the activity of the latest ROS v4.5.7 in RX mode. I have been using Process Explorer from Sysinternals (microsoft) .With The Process Explorer you have the possibility to see the network activity in real time . What I fount out was that the ADIFdata2 module in ROS was trying to connect to the address: 90.225.73.203, 217.31.161.71,8 or 217.31.161.34.50 on port 8000 and sending data from my computer. LA5VNA Steinar On 08.07.2010 05:20, Rein A wrote: Thank you, Laurei: Where Do The Spots Come From? 08-Jul-2010 14:45utc There has been much internet speculation that HamSpots gets the ROS spots directly from the ROS Software. This is INCORRECT. ROS spots are retrieved from the DX Cluster ONLY. This site has no relationship with the ROS software or its developer. HamSpots maintains a private dedicated Cluster Node and processes all incoming spots to that node to determine the mode being used (ROS, PSK, RTTY, SSTV, HELL, etc.) to display correctly on the individual Mode Pages. HamSpots also takes direct feeds from the PSKReporter Network (thanks to N1DQ) and the JT65 Reverse Beacon Network (thanks to W6CQZ). 73 Rein, W6SZ http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
I finally installed ROS and it triggered my firewall trying to connect to 109.72.112.37 port 7300. I did a Telnet, it is Cluster Node US6IQ-1 Today I again started ROS and this time the firewall triggered on ROS connecting to 82.182.70.198 port 8000, which is Cluster Node SM6YOU-2 I have never used either of these nodes, so obviously, they are hard-coded into ROS. I note from viewing the Cluster Spots, there are a several Cluster Nodes (these two included) that are used frequently for sending ROS spots. It appears the Mr ROS has hard-coded several Cluster nodes and changes which is used. There is no option in ROS to allow the user to select their preferred Cluster Node. Just my observations. de Laurie, VK3AMA On 9/07/2010 5:28 AM, Steinar Aanesland 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: login: GET / HTTP/1.1 Host: 90.225.73.203:8000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; nb-NO; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: nb,no;q=0.8,nn;q=0.6,en-us;q=0.4,en;q=0.2 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Keep-Alive: 115 Connection: keep-alive Sorry GET / HTTP/1.1 is an invalid callsign - Then try to type c:telnet 90.225.73.203 8000 , then you will see that this is TELNET and that explains the funny call sings . Whe people is bande in this software whey are using a fake call sign . This fake call sign is the sent to the cluster when people is in RX mode. I hope this is understandable . LA5VNA Steinar On 08.07.2010 20:53, Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Rein After reading your mail about ROS and the HamSpots , I have done some testing. I have monitored the activity of the latest ROS v4.5.7 in RX mode. I have been using Process Explorer from Sysinternals (microsoft) .With The Process Explorer you have the possibility to see the network activity in real time . What I fount out was that the ADIFdata2 module in ROS was trying to connect to the address: 90.225.73.203, 217.31.161.71,8 or 217.31.161.34.50 on port 8000 and sending data from my computer. LA5VNA Steinar On 08.07.2010 05:20, Rein A wrote: Thank you, Laurei: Where Do The Spots Come From? 08-Jul-2010 14:45utc There has been much internet speculation that HamSpots gets the ROS spots directly from the ROS Software. This is INCORRECT. ROS spots are retrieved from the DX Cluster ONLY. This site has no relationship with the ROS software or its developer. HamSpots maintains a private dedicated Cluster Node and processes all incoming spots to that node to determine the mode being used (ROS, PSK, RTTY, SSTV, HELL, etc.) to display correctly on the individual Mode Pages. HamSpots also takes direct feeds from the PSKReporter Network (thanks to N1DQ) and the JT65 Reverse Beacon Network (thanks to W6CQZ). 73 Rein, W6SZ http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS on 40 meters
If I download a new version I will NOT be able to use the program. For a unknown reason I was one of the people that Jose has seen unfit to use it. That was the reason I had to beg for a earlier venison of it. But thanks for your reply. At 03:50 PM 7/5/2010, you wrote: If you download and installed the newest version you will find the qrg in the software You CAN use it with rig control and set the right qrg via serial port but you can also use a rig without cat and tune in by hand The qrg of ALL bands can be found in the soft in the frequency tab Dg9bfc Sigi Ps in the qrg tab you see also the mode being used (example bw 0k5 on 30m etc)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS on 40 meters
I'm bored, so I'll bite. It is my understanding that in the US, ROS is only allowed above 222Mhz. On 40M, you would be held to SWL status. You should find it around 7.053 to 7.056. phil n4zsa - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 1:43 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS on 40 meters What freq is the ROS mode being used on 40 Meters? World like to play with it a bit. John
Re: [digitalradio] ROS on 40 meters
And I would recommend that anyone wanting to use ROS should be required to read this thread on QRZ which highlights some of the shadier aspects of this program. http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php...highlight=ros And of course, you can search the archives of this mailing list for (literally) hundreds of messages discussing the legality of the mode in the US. Dave K3DCW On Jul 5, 2010, at 1:58 PM, phil g wrote: I'm bored, so I'll bite. It is my understanding that in the US, ROS is only allowed above 222Mhz. On 40M, you would be held to SWL status. You should find it around 7.053 to 7.056. phil n4zsa - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 1:43 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS on 40 meters What freq is the ROS mode being used on 40 Meters? World like to play with it a bit. John Dave www.k3dcw.net Real radio bounces off the sky
Re: [digitalradio] ROS 10 meters
And cause QRM in the beacon subband... So much for the Gentlemen's Agreement! Wes W1LIC From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com To: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, June 1, 2010 7:42:58 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS 10 meters FYI Changes on 10 meters 29 May, 2010 At the suggestion of some USA operators, we are changed ROS 10 meters frequency: Now is 28295 instead of 28305. USA Hams of the “ROS is not SS” Platform are not agree with ARRL about ROS is view as SS, and they dont see any different between MT63 and ROS, except a more robutness for DX. So they are going to use ROS on 10 meters. Congratulations and enjoy ROS http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
On 06/02/2010 12:15 PM, Steinar Aanesland wrote: let's forget about this Mr. Ros without manners and his new a Yahoo list. There is a lot of decent programmers out there, making excellent HAM software. Mr. Ros is not worth the attention he and he's frequency-hopping spread spectrum software is getting. Mr Ros has the right to: - limit who uses his software - keep the ROS protocol info secret - limit who is allowed in his community Of course, either of these three modes alone is a serious deterrent to adoption of his modes by the ham radio community. All three together are a death knell. However, that is his choice. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
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
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Hello John, At the risk of being banned for live from this list readers might and I am interested in the details of this situation. I got the impression from your message that you had some contacts with Mr ROS on facebook/twitter? Now, I seems you are saying that you are banned/prevented from using ROS software! Are you sure it is not an installation problem of some kind? Mr, ROS had on web site yesterday I believe, a note about hour H and the day D that things were going to happen, with the users of ROS, their computer(s), the functionality of the program? It seems MR Ros has distributed actions in earlier released versions and that these will be activated at H and D. BTW, seriously John, I am not making this up. Not only that, have been warned about this sort of actions in the past by respected Mature radio amateurs, off the list. And would not believe it! You can also contact me of the list or you and others, interested in ROS questions, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rosmodemusa/?yguid=1448749 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net Sent: Jun 2, 2010 3:25 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP 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 http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Hi Rein let's forget about this Mr. Ros without manners and his new a Yahoo list. There is a lot of decent programmers out there, making excellent HAM software. Mr. Ros is not worth the attention he and he's frequency-hopping spread spectrum software is getting. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 02.06.2010 01:38, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Hello John, Please tell me what do you mean? Yahoo list(s)? It is very easy to get of a Yahoo list. ( I think and hope. ) Have changed the some 25 lists I am on often, delivery format etc. Also have never experienced this dictatorial action on a Yahoo List so far. As far as Mr. Ros is concerned there was a time not long ago, that I tried to defend him, Thought, he was misunderstood even when attacking good decent amateurs. Thought it was the language. Offered to skype with him. English is not my native Language. I have a flexible EU English skill and under stand English with a French, Swedish, German, Dutch, accent, you name it no problem. Others did warn me, but the idiot I am, did not believe them. So developed a pretty strong skin by now. Where did this happen Facebook? Well you ask Mr. Ros a question he does not like or gets to close to the bone, you get it. Verbal, lawyers, Interpol I was warned by a very nice Cuban professor, I don't know on what terms he is or was with Mr. Fidel Castro, before he stepped down. This professor speaks Spanish probably a few more languages and very good English, I do not, unfortunately, but that might have been the reason for me to be that slow in understanding all this. Right from the beginning, I warned Mr Ros about the IARU beacons on 14.100 kHz. Reason for the first conflict situations with Mr ROS. Long before the many of the present ROS users were aware of Mr. ROS A Mr. Ros has no manners whatever. B Mr. Ros has not even the most basic skills of dealing with people. C Mr. Ros has no idea, what amateur radio is ( no big deal really ) D Mr. Ros might not be straight with the users of his program. The way Mr. Ros behaves indicates to me that he has other interests than providing a program, being it very nice, free to the amateur radio community. Users might not care about that angle, I do not either as a matter of fact but I think it might explain things. Without a doubt we all will get to learn this over time. I have been trying to help us ( US amateurs ) in using ROS Modem. If Mr ROS had any concern in this regard, he would fix the problem and write a paper that we could present to our licensing agency. Mr ROS woud have trouble talking to that agency. Telling us that he had been in touch with that agency Thanks for your comments and nice words, John. I know it is so boring and OT. ( And Dave (G0DJA ) is your spam bin sufficient empty ) 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net Sent: Jun 1, 2010 6:51 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Rein Don't take it personal. For some reason even I got on his bad list. I did ask but never got an answer. Not sure but I think someone has been feeding bad info to him. Think he was told that I has said something that I really did not or it was misunderstood. John, W0JAB http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Dear Steinar, Very true. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no Sent: Jun 2, 2010 4:15 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hi Rein let's forget about this Mr. Ros without manners and his new a Yahoo list. There is a lot of decent programmers out there, making excellent HAM software. Mr. Ros is not worth the attention he and he's frequency-hopping spread spectrum software is getting. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 02.06.2010 01:38, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Hello John, Please tell me what do you mean? Yahoo list(s)? It is very easy to get of a Yahoo list. ( I think and hope. ) Have changed the some 25 lists I am on often, delivery format etc. Also have never experienced this dictatorial action on a Yahoo List so far. As far as Mr. Ros is concerned there was a time not long ago, that I tried to defend him, Thought, he was misunderstood even when attacking good decent amateurs. Thought it was the language. Offered to skype with him. English is not my native Language. I have a flexible EU English skill and under stand English with a French, Swedish, German, Dutch, accent, you name it no problem. Others did warn me, but the idiot I am, did not believe them. So developed a pretty strong skin by now. Where did this happen Facebook? Well you ask Mr. Ros a question he does not like or gets to close to the bone, you get it. Verbal, lawyers, Interpol I was warned by a very nice Cuban professor, I don't know on what terms he is or was with Mr. Fidel Castro, before he stepped down. This professor speaks Spanish probably a few more languages and very good English, I do not, unfortunately, but that might have been the reason for me to be that slow in understanding all this. Right from the beginning, I warned Mr Ros about the IARU beacons on 14.100 kHz. Reason for the first conflict situations with Mr ROS. Long before the many of the present ROS users were aware of Mr. ROS A Mr. Ros has no manners whatever. B Mr. Ros has not even the most basic skills of dealing with people. C Mr. Ros has no idea, what amateur radio is ( no big deal really ) D Mr. Ros might not be straight with the users of his program. The way Mr. Ros behaves indicates to me that he has other interests than providing a program, being it very nice, free to the amateur radio community. Users might not care about that angle, I do not either as a matter of fact but I think it might explain things. Without a doubt we all will get to learn this over time. I have been trying to help us ( US amateurs ) in using ROS Modem. If Mr ROS had any concern in this regard, he would fix the problem and write a paper that we could present to our licensing agency. Mr ROS woud have trouble talking to that agency. Telling us that he had been in touch with that agency Thanks for your comments and nice words, John. I know it is so boring and OT. ( And Dave (G0DJA ) is your spam bin sufficient empty ) 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net Sent: Jun 1, 2010 6:51 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Rein Don't take it personal. For some reason even I got on his bad list. I did ask but never got an answer. Not sure but I think someone has been feeding bad info to him. Think he was told that I has said something that I really did not or it was misunderstood. John, W0JAB http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
No need to worry from being banned from this list from me. That's not my style of moderating. Yes I can no longer use ROS for some reason. I did ask but that went unanswered. All I know is that he posted a updated version and when ask for my call the program would shut down if I recall. Never did go back to it. But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
- Original Message - But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections. I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the program and not any other random call? -- Dave AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
I think that is what I said below now in RED By my call I mean W0JAB At 12:44 PM 6/2/2010, you wrote: - Original Message - But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections. I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the program and not any other random call? -- Dave AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Oops, I missed that. What I *THOUGHT* you were saying is that you tried making a call (to a station with the current release) and succeeded. You might only be able to communicate with stations within a narrow range of release numbers near to the one you possess. I do think that demands for source code might be unnecessary, but IIRC a complete specification of the protocol is necessary. That's why PACTOR is legal. There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). -- Dave - AF6AS - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP I think that is what I said below now in RED By my call I mean W0JAB At 12:44 PM 6/2/2010, you wrote: - Original Message - But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections. I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the program and not any other random call? -- Dave AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Hello Dave, AF6AS, IIRC what does it stand for? There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). Is that documented somewhere, not that I want to question the statement or you. What about something like: Those need to be able to read/decode it under all circumstances 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Dave Sparks dspa...@pobox.com Sent: Jun 2, 2010 2:14 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Oops, I missed that. What I *THOUGHT* you were saying is that you tried making a call (to a station with the current release) and succeeded. You might only be able to communicate with stations within a narrow range of release numbers near to the one you possess. I do think that demands for source code might be unnecessary, but IIRC a complete specification of the protocol is necessary. That's why PACTOR is legal. There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). -- Dave - AF6AS - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP I think that is what I said below now in RED By my call I mean W0JAB At 12:44 PM 6/2/2010, you wrote: - Original Message - But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections. I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the program and not any other random call? -- Dave AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
IIRC = if I remember correctly. The documentation issue stemmed from someone who complained that PACTOR, and maybe other digital modes, could be considered codes or cyphers, and the FCC ruled that they weren't because they were publicly documented. The source code has not been released by SCS, however. A public spec would resolve the issue of whether ROS is SS or not. I can't locate a reference to this issue, but if no one else remembers it, I will do a more intensive search on the subject I'm still wondering how CHIP-64 seems to be allowed on HF by the FCC. It is admittedly Spread Spectrum. -- Dave - AF6AS -- From: rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 1:01 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hello Dave, AF6AS, IIRC what does it stand for? There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). Is that documented somewhere, not that I want to question the statement or you. What about something like: Those need to be able to read/decode it under all circumstances 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Dave Sparks dspa...@pobox.com Sent: Jun 2, 2010 2:14 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Oops, I missed that. What I *THOUGHT* you were saying is that you tried making a call (to a station with the current release) and succeeded. You might only be able to communicate with stations within a narrow range of release numbers near to the one you possess. I do think that demands for source code might be unnecessary, but IIRC a complete specification of the protocol is necessary. That's why PACTOR is legal. There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). -- Dave - AF6AS - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP I think that is what I said below now in RED By my call I mean W0JAB At 12:44 PM 6/2/2010, you wrote: - Original Message - But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections. I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the program and not any other random call? -- Dave AF6AS http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Hello Dave, Don't sse ypou much anymore on HF WSJT ,changes in antenna? OK and thanks. I contacted the people in VA and they replied right away. telling me that they had stopped the mode. as a result of this case and I believe a ruling / statement by ARRL ( probably only , no official FCC staements) Very hard to check what is true and false. The stop is TRUE though MT63 or 61 is in use with MARS But MT63 is no SS I believe (not published stepping patterns etc ) 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Dave Sparks dspa...@pobox.com Sent: Jun 2, 2010 4:27 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP IIRC = if I remember correctly. The documentation issue stemmed from someone who complained that PACTOR, and maybe other digital modes, could be considered codes or cyphers, and the FCC ruled that they weren't because they were publicly documented. The source code has not been released by SCS, however. A public spec would resolve the issue of whether ROS is SS or not. I can't locate a reference to this issue, but if no one else remembers it, I will do a more intensive search on the subject I'm still wondering how CHIP-64 seems to be allowed on HF by the FCC. It is admittedly Spread Spectrum. -- Dave - AF6AS -- From: rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 1:01 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hello Dave, AF6AS, IIRC what does it stand for? There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). Is that documented somewhere, not that I want to question the statement or you. What about something like: Those need to be able to read/decode it under all circumstances 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Dave Sparks dspa...@pobox.com Sent: Jun 2, 2010 2:14 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Oops, I missed that. What I *THOUGHT* you were saying is that you tried making a call (to a station with the current release) and succeeded. You might only be able to communicate with stations within a narrow range of release numbers near to the one you possess. I do think that demands for source code might be unnecessary, but IIRC a complete specification of the protocol is necessary. That's why PACTOR is legal. There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). -- Dave - AF6AS - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP I think that is what I said below now in RED By my call I mean W0JAB At 12:44 PM 6/2/2010, you wrote: - Original Message - But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections. I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the program and not any other random call? -- Dave AF6AS http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Found the section. It is 97.309(a)(4) of the code: http://www.arrl.org/technical-characteristics The reverse-engineering part is an inference on my part. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS -- From: rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 1:01 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hello Dave, AF6AS, IIRC what does it stand for? There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). Is that documented somewhere, not that I want to question the statement or you. What about something like: Those need to be able to read/decode it under all circumstances 73 Rein W6SZ
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
I have been experimenting with APRS-PSK63 lately. I'll probably get back to JT65 one of these days. I may even run ROS in beacon receive-only mode on occasion. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS -- From: rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 1:34 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hello Dave, Don't sse ypou much anymore on HF WSJT ,changes in antenna? OK and thanks. I contacted the people in VA and they replied right away. telling me that they had stopped the mode. as a result of this case and I believe a ruling / statement by ARRL ( probably only , no official FCC staements) Very hard to check what is true and false. The stop is TRUE though MT63 or 61 is in use with MARS But MT63 is no SS I believe (not published stepping patterns etc ) 73 Rein W6SZ
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
--- On Wed, 2/6/10, Dave Sparks dspa...@pobox.com wrote: Found the section. It is 97.309(a)(4) of the code: http://www.arrl.org/technical-characteristics The reverse-engineering part is an inference on my part. No chance of reverse-engineering Pactor III from the information provided. 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Hello John, Please tell me what do you mean? Yahoo list(s)? It is very easy to get of a Yahoo list. ( I think and hope. ) Have changed the some 25 lists I am on often, delivery format etc. Also have never experienced this dictatorial action on a Yahoo List so far. As far as Mr. Ros is concerned there was a time not long ago, that I tried to defend him, Thought, he was misunderstood even when attacking good decent amateurs. Thought it was the language. Offered to skype with him. English is not my native Language. I have a flexible EU English skill and under stand English with a French, Swedish, German, Dutch, accent, you name it no problem. Others did warn me, but the idiot I am, did not believe them. So developed a pretty strong skin by now. Where did this happen Facebook? Well you ask Mr. Ros a question he does not like or gets to close to the bone, you get it. Verbal, lawyers, Interpol I was warned by a very nice Cuban professor, I don't know on what terms he is or was with Mr. Fidel Castro, before he stepped down. This professor speaks Spanish probably a few more languages and very good English, I do not, unfortunately, but that might have been the reason for me to be that slow in understanding all this. Right from the beginning, I warned Mr Ros about the IARU beacons on 14.100 kHz. Reason for the first conflict situations with Mr ROS. Long before the many of the present ROS users were aware of Mr. ROS A Mr. Ros has no manners whatever. B Mr. Ros has not even the most basic skills of dealing with people. C Mr. Ros has no idea, what amateur radio is ( no big deal really ) D Mr. Ros might not be straight with the users of his program. The way Mr. Ros behaves indicates to me that he has other interests than providing a program, being it very nice, free to the amateur radio community. Users might not care about that angle, I do not either as a matter of fact but I think it might explain things. Without a doubt we all will get to learn this over time. I have been trying to help us ( US amateurs ) in using ROS Modem. If Mr ROS had any concern in this regard, he would fix the problem and write a paper that we could present to our licensing agency. Mr ROS woud have trouble talking to that agency. Telling us that he had been in touch with that agency Thanks for your comments and nice words, John. I know it is so boring and OT. ( And Dave (G0DJA ) is your spam bin sufficient empty ) 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net Sent: Jun 1, 2010 6:51 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Rein Don't take it personal. For some reason even I got on his bad list. I did ask but never got an answer. Not sure but I think someone has been feeding bad info to him. Think he was told that I has said something that I really did not or it was misunderstood. John, W0JAB http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MF-7 IS OUT THERE ! (And less than 100 Hz wide)
good news, nice to see this mode make good progress. Andy K3UK On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 9:53 AM, graham787 g0...@hotmail.com wrote: After a series of successful test transmissions, the latest version of ROS-3-6-1 (at the moment) now has the MF mode included , this allows live key board qso's at a data rate close to 500/8 and also has a baud-1 mode with enhanced s/n performance , transmission via non-linear systems is possible , though the logic drive of class e/d will still present problems. To comply with the EU 100 Hz data bandwidth of the 500Khz permits the mode is coded to occupy less than 100 Hz , the first custom mode to be produced to enable data communications with in the EU on MF The first on air qso over 200 miles is listed http://lfistes.erst.azerttyu.net/viewtopic.php?f=17t=1982sid=5f68ac5172a5c1206\ 214df5b03c2bc50http://lfistes.erst.azerttyu.net/viewtopic.php?f=17t=1982sid=5f68ac5172a5c1206214df5b03c2bc50 Scroll down the page ... and you will see the RX station F4DTL was in Paris 650 Km from myself running 20 watts to 35 ft top loaded vertical and round 325 km from Jim running 100 w to a similar array Its quite possible that the 100 Hz mode will function well over HF over the polar paths where psk tends to fail ? G ..
Re: [digitalradio] Ros posts rebuttal of Olivia / Ros test results
Perhaps Tony, K2MO, can make some pathsim comparisons of ROS 8 baud with Olivia 32-1000. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/the-ros-numbers http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/the-ros-numbers Julian, G4ILO
RE: [digitalradio] ROS on UHF
There's a lot more to Olivia than being multi-tone MFSK. A fairer comparison with a new mode such as ROS would be MFSK as the features of Olivia that make it so very robust could (should) be added at a later date. To put it simply Olivia hunts for the best signal it can decode and has error correction, this 'hunting' is a reason for the greater CPU usage. Simon Brown, HB9DRV http://sdr-radio.com From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hteller Sent: 21 March 2010 15:38 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] ROS on UHF ... whereas Olivia is a multitone FSK mode and does very well.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS on UHF
Simon HB9DRV wrote: There's a lot more to Olivia than being multi-tone MFSK. I am aware of that, Simon. However, Olivia is currently the most popular digital mode other than PSK31 and RTTY, and the question was if ROS 16 baud was worth using twice the bandwidth of Olivia. We hoped that it would be, because on UHF, space is not at a premium as it is on HF, but ROS 16 baud, (the spread spectrum variation) at 2250 Hz width, was not even as good as SSB phone under the fast Doppler flutter conditions. So, as a choice of modes currently available, either MFSK16 (my personal preference on HF, but impractical on UHF due to the necessity to tune so accurately and have little or no drift) or Olivia, is a far better choice than ROS, and performs better. We would like nothing better if there were a mode that outperformed Olivia at equivalent typing speed, and could copy further into the noise than Olivia can, and is more tolerant to mis-tuning or drift than MFSK16, but so far ROS is not the one. As things stand, CW (decoded by ear) is currently the last mode standing, but it seems it must be possible to come up a mode that can beat CW under the typical conditions found on UHF. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] ROS on UHF]
If there were documentation on ROS then there would the possibility of investigating the problem further and maybe adding improvements. Part of the problem is that even if there is a large degree of spreading compared to the data rate, the channel is still quite narrow and a large portion of it subject to the same disturbances or interference. This is similar to what happens with the various commercial broadcast digital systems. The wider ones are much more robust, especially in regard to multipath, even though the data payload was increased in proportion. KH6TY wrote: Simon HB9DRV wrote: There's a lot more to Olivia than being multi-tone MFSK. I am aware of that, Simon. However, Olivia is currently the most popular digital mode other than PSK31 and RTTY, and the question was if ROS 16 baud was worth using twice the bandwidth of Olivia. We hoped that it would be, because on UHF, space is not at a premium as it is on HF, but ROS 16 baud, (the spread spectrum variation) at 2250 Hz width, was not even as good as SSB phone under the fast Doppler flutter conditions. So, as a choice of modes currently available, either MFSK16 (my personal preference on HF, but impractical on UHF due to the necessity to tune so accurately and have little or no drift) or Olivia, is a far better choice than ROS, and performs better. We would like nothing better if there were a mode that outperformed Olivia at equivalent typing speed, and could copy further into the noise than Olivia can, and is more tolerant to mis-tuning or drift than MFSK16, but so far ROS is not the one. As things stand, CW (decoded by ear) is currently the last mode standing, but it seems it must be possible to come up a mode that can beat CW under the typical conditions found on UHF. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] ROS on UHF]
Based on observations of the tones on the waterfall on the air, compared to observing them locally, and hearing the raucous tones compared to bell-like quality locally, my guess is that perhaps the modulation is disturbed or the tones moved in frequency far enough so there is no decoding. If we try to use DominoEx, which is very tolerant to drift, the Doppler distortion also stops DominoEx from decoding. MFSK16 is not usable, because the Doppler shift is so great that tuning is lost and the AFC cannot follow it. It is not unusual to see a slow Doppler shift of 50 Hz to 100 Hz on 70cm, but the most severe problem is a fast Doppler distortion which is present almost all the time and destroys the integrity of the carriers, at least as it is possible to hear and see on the waterfall. I can't compare ROS on HF to UHF, except for monitoring, as it is illegal to transmit on HF, but monitoring on HF does not show the same problems. I have seen ROS signals start printing garbage on HF in a QSB fade and then recover when the fade ends, but there is no published specification for the minimum S/N that the 16 baud variation is supposed to work at. Even when there is no QRM, I have seen decoding of ROS 16 baud, 2250 Hz width, stop at metrics of -8 dB. If this corresponds to S/N, then the 16 baud version does not compare favorably with Olivia or MFSK16, which can work 4 dB to 5 dB lower. My guess is that the problem is not because the spreading in ROS is too little, but on UHF, that the tones themselves are disturbed in a way that makes ROS just print garbage when Olivia is still printing quite well. ROS stopped decoding today even when SSB phone was about Q4 copy, and under those conditions Olivia prints without any errors. Unfortunately the way it is now, we are unable to successfully use ROS on UHF, for whatever the reason, and it is illegal to use it on HF under FCC jurisdiction. That is too bad, because ROS is definitely fun to use. 73 - Skip KH6TY w2xj wrote: If there were documentation on ROS then there would the possibility of investigating the problem further and maybe adding improvements. Part of the problem is that even if there is a large degree of spreading compared to the data rate, the channel is still quite narrow and a large portion of it subject to the same disturbances or interference. This is similar to what happens with the various commercial broadcast digital systems. The wider ones are much more robust, especially in regard to multipath, even though the data payload was increased in proportion. KH6TY wrote: Simon HB9DRV wrote: There's a lot more to Olivia than being multi-tone MFSK. I am aware of that, Simon. However, Olivia is currently the most popular digital mode other than PSK31 and RTTY, and the question was if ROS 16 baud was worth using twice the bandwidth of Olivia. We hoped that it would be, because on UHF, space is not at a premium as it is on HF, but ROS 16 baud, (the spread spectrum variation) at 2250 Hz width, was not even as good as SSB phone under the fast Doppler flutter conditions. So, as a choice of modes currently available, either MFSK16 (my personal preference on HF, but impractical on UHF due to the necessity to tune so accurately and have little or no drift) or Olivia, is a far better choice than ROS, and performs better. We would like nothing better if there were a mode that outperformed Olivia at equivalent typing speed, and could copy further into the noise than Olivia can, and is more tolerant to mis-tuning or drift than MFSK16, but so far ROS is not the one. As things stand, CW (decoded by ear) is currently the last mode standing, but it seems it must be possible to come up a mode that can beat CW under the typical conditions found on UHF. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] ROS on UHF]]
Yes but at UHF there seems to not be enough spread to tolerate the Doppler shift. If the frequencies were further apart, and were received through a wider window, the Doppler would be tolerated better but at what penalty in noise? I can think of a few ways to solve your problem but not with existing sound card modes. KH6TY wrote: Based on observations of the tones on the waterfall on the air, compared to observing them locally, and hearing the raucous tones compared to bell-like quality locally, my guess is that perhaps the modulation is disturbed or the tones moved in frequency far enough so there is no decoding. If we try to use DominoEx, which is very tolerant to drift, the Doppler distortion also stops DominoEx from decoding. MFSK16 is not usable, because the Doppler shift is so great that tuning is lost and the AFC cannot follow it. It is not unusual to see a slow Doppler shift of 50 Hz to 100 Hz on 70cm, but the most severe problem is a fast Doppler distortion which is present almost all the time and destroys the integrity of the carriers, at least as it is possible to hear and see on the waterfall. I can't compare ROS on HF to UHF, except for monitoring, as it is illegal to transmit on HF, but monitoring on HF does not show the same problems. I have seen ROS signals start printing garbage on HF in a QSB fade and then recover when the fade ends, but there is no published specification for the minimum S/N that the 16 baud variation is supposed to work at. Even when there is no QRM, I have seen decoding of ROS 16 baud, 2250 Hz width, stop at metrics of -8 dB. If this corresponds to S/N, then the 16 baud version does not compare favorably with Olivia or MFSK16, which can work 4 dB to 5 dB lower. My guess is that the problem is not because the spreading in ROS is too little, but on UHF, that the tones themselves are disturbed in a way that makes ROS just print garbage when Olivia is still printing quite well. ROS stopped decoding today even when SSB phone was about Q4 copy, and under those conditions Olivia prints without any errors. Unfortunately the way it is now, we are unable to successfully use ROS on UHF, for whatever the reason, and it is illegal to use it on HF under FCC jurisdiction. That is too bad, because ROS is definitely fun to use. 73 - Skip KH6TY w2xj wrote: If there were documentation on ROS then there would the possibility of investigating the problem further and maybe adding improvements. Part of the problem is that even if there is a large degree of spreading compared to the data rate, the channel is still quite narrow and a large portion of it subject to the same disturbances or interference. This is similar to what happens with the various commercial broadcast digital systems. The wider ones are much more robust, especially in regard to multipath, even though the data payload was increased in proportion. KH6TY wrote: Simon HB9DRV wrote: There's a lot more to Olivia than being multi-tone MFSK. I am aware of that, Simon. However, Olivia is currently the most popular digital mode other than PSK31 and RTTY, and the question was if ROS 16 baud was worth using twice the bandwidth of Olivia. We hoped that it would be, because on UHF, space is not at a premium as it is on HF, but ROS 16 baud, (the spread spectrum variation) at 2250 Hz width, was not even as good as SSB phone under the fast Doppler flutter conditions. So, as a choice of modes currently available, either MFSK16 (my personal preference on HF, but impractical on UHF due to the necessity to tune so accurately and have little or no drift) or Olivia, is a far better choice than ROS, and performs better. We would like nothing better if there were a mode that outperformed Olivia at equivalent typing speed, and could copy further into the noise than Olivia can, and is more tolerant to mis-tuning or drift than MFSK16, but so far ROS is not the one. As things stand, CW (decoded by ear) is currently the last mode standing, but it seems it must be possible to come up a mode that can beat CW under the typical conditions found on UHF. 73 - Skip KH6TY
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)
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
Re: [digitalradio] ROS
Thank you, now we know truth. Guess I better stay clear of it till the determination is officially posted...73, Alan Earlier this morning, I called the FCC to confirm the FCC: ROS LEGAL IN USA assertion made in http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ I asked for confirmation that the FCC had deemed ROS legal for use on HF by US amateurs. When asked for a case number, I provided the case number given on the above web page -- but was informed that this case number refers to a password reset request, not ROS. I asked if I could speak with agent 3820, and was immediately connected; her name is Dawn. I gave Dawn the above URL, and read her the salient paragraph. She said that the information about ROS legality posted on the above web site was not accurate. Dawn went on to say that FCC staff members were working on this issue, and asked me to not make public comments until further progress had been made. She offered to call me at that time. Dawn called me a few minutes ago, and stated that FCC staff consider the information on the above web page to be out of context and misleading. She further stated that FCC staff is working with the ARRL on this issue, and that the outcome will be publicized by the ARRL. Dawn expects this to happen soon; there is nothing related to ROS posted on http://www.arrl.org/ http://www.arrl.org/ as of a few minutes ago. Note that all telephone conversations with FCC personnel are recorded. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -- Keep up with Ham radio in the Bitterroot: http://bitterrootradio.ning.com/ Linux Mint - The Free O/S that you'll love! http://www.linuxmint.com/start/helena/
Re: [digitalradio] ROS operating frequencies on 20m
Julian, In the US, the RTTY/data segment of 20m stops at 14.150. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: Can anything be done to get the recommended frequencies for ROS on 20m shifted out of the 14.101 - 14.109 range that already has established users of other modes? On my band plan, 14.101 and up is designated for All modes which goes right the way up to 14.350 so there is no reason for digital modes to pile on top of each other. It makes no sense whatever for two modes that can both be used to make weak signal contacts - ROS and Olivia - to use the same frequencies, when neither users can copy the others' transmissions, possibly not even see the other mode activity on the waterfall if it is weak, and certainly not call QRL? in a way that could be understood by the other mode user. Julian, G4ILO G4ILO's Blog: http://blog.g4ilo.com http://blog.g4ilo.com
Re: [digitalradio] ROS operating frequencies on 20m
KH6TY wrote: Julian, In the US, the RTTY/data segment of 20m stops at 14.150. The current UK band plans can be found at http://www.rsgb.org/spectrumforum/bandplans/ There's an online version and an Excel version that you can download. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS UHF net February 6 1230 UTC
ooops, I meant MARCH 6th On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 5:16 PM, obrienaj k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: I will be on 432.090 mHz this Saturday Feb 6 at 1230 UTC . listening and testing ROS 1 and 16. If interested, check in to the K3Uk Sked page http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/
Re: [digitalradio] ROS UHF net February 6 1230 UTC
I take it you mean MARCH 6th? -- Dave Sparks - AF6AS - Original Message - From: obrienaj k3uka...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:16 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS UHF net February 6 1230 UTC I will be on 432.090 mHz this Saturday Feb 6 at 1230 UTC . listening and testing ROS 1 and 16. If interested, check in to the K3Uk Sked page http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/ 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
Re: [digitalradio] ROS update
Jose, Is THIS really true: [T]he information contained on the ROS Web site was /not/ provided by the FCC. la5vna S On 04.03.2010 23:10, 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. :-( From the ARRL website, http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11377/?nc=1, 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. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11377/?nc=1 Hope to see you on ROS on UHF, 432.090 MHz, every morning between 7:30 AM and 8:00 AM. 73, Skip KH6TY FM02BT
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)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS
Like my friend Alan, I am distressed by the shading of the meaning of lie. I believe we safely explain the short word LIE now by looking at an example. Bob N4HY On 3/3/2010 1:06 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote: Earlier this morning, I called the FCC to confirm the FCC: ROS LEGAL IN USA assertion made in http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ I asked for confirmation that the FCC had deemed ROS legal for use on HF by US amateurs. When asked for a case number, I provided the case number given on the above web page -- but was informed that this case number refers to a password reset request, not ROS. I asked if I could speak with agent 3820, and was immediately connected; her name is Dawn. I gave Dawn the above URL, and read her the salient paragraph. She said that the information about ROS legality posted on the above web site was not accurate. Dawn went on to say that FCC staff members were working on this issue, and asked me to not make public comments until further progress had been made. She offered to call me at that time. Dawn called me a few minutes ago, and stated that FCC staff consider the information on the above web page to be out of context and misleading. She further stated that FCC staff is working with the ARRL on this issue, and that the outcome will be publicized by the ARRL. Dawn expects this to happen soon; there is nothing related to ROS posted on http://www.arrl.org/ as of a few minutes ago. Note that all telephone conversations with FCC personnel are recorded. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -- (Co)Author: DttSP, Quiktrak, PowerSDR, GnuRadio Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent -Thomas Jefferson Active: Facebook,Twitter,LinkedIn 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] ROS
I was about to call myself since I couldn't find anything on the FCC site about it, no ROS, no such case number no nothing. From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com Cc: Skip Teller KH6TY htel...@comcast.net; Andy K3UK k...@obriensweb.com; Dave Bernstein AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 12:06:06 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS Earlier this morning, I called the FCC to confirm the FCC: ROS LEGAL IN USA assertion made in http://rosmodem. wordpress. com/ I asked for confirmation that the FCC had deemed ROS legal for use on HF by US amateurs. When asked for a case number, I provided the case number given on the above web page -- but was informed that this case number refers to a password reset request, not ROS. I asked if I could speak with agent 3820, and was immediately connected; her name is Dawn. I gave Dawn the above URL, and read her the salient paragraph. She said that the information about ROS legality posted on the above web site was not accurate. Dawn went on to say that FCC staff members were working on this issue, and asked me to not make public comments until further progress had been made. She offered to call me at that time. Dawn called me a few minutes ago, and stated that FCC staff consider the information on the above web page to be out of context and misleading. She further stated that FCC staff is working with the ARRL on this issue, and that the outcome will be publicized by the ARRL. Dawn expects this to happen soon; there is nothing related to ROS posted on http://www.arrl. org/ as of a few minutes ago. Note that all telephone conversations with FCC personnel are recorded. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] ROS Soundcard select .. missing tx option for usb card
Hi Dave, I have the same issue finally in Windows 7, I have to use 2.1.5 with soundcard set as default Youre not alone L Luc VE2FXL De : digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] De la part de graham787 Envoyé : 2 mars 2010 17:40 À : digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Objet : [digitalradio] ROS Soundcard select .. missing tx option for usb card Just installed 2-2-1 , with the sound card select .. can select the USB card for the input audio (on board sound showing as well) .. but ... the USB card is not showing in the TX audio list .. only the on-board sound ... Have checked with fldigi and digipan , usb card is selectable and working tx/rx ... (running win xp-pro sp3 / intel gigbyte mb) why me :( G ..
Re: [digitalradio] ROS discussion - will it ever end
At 10:00 01-03-10, G4JNT wrote: rgh I agree 100% :-) - it has become a sterile discussion, IMHO. 73 - Marco IK1ODO / AI4YF
Re: [digitalradio] ROS discussion - will it ever end
From: IMR ac.tal...@btinternet.com Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 Time: 09:00:33 rgh I don't hink I can stand it any more and will just have to unsubscribe from this group.I originally joined it as being the author of the Data column in RSGB's RadCom, felt I ought to keep in touch with the people who actually use the datamodes and was hoping for a decent set of technical-type postings on the way datamode usage was moving amongst amateurs. [Snip] rgh As a founder of the RSGB's Data Communications Committee, and the founder and first editor of the Data column in RSGB's RadCom, I'm hanging on in here. Data comms is much more than just the technicalities. To be sure, there have been some nonsensical posts here on this matter, and some people seem to have been incredibly naive in their dealings with ARRL and the FCC, but the fact remains that we are all constrained by the legalities as well as the technicalities. Let the discussion continue. -- 73 Ian, G3NRW
Re: [digitalradio] ROS discussion - will it ever end
I propose we change this group name to the... ROS Roundabout. I keep seeing the same arguments from the same preple over and over. That reminds me of GroundHog Day the movie. :-) I am so over the whole discussion, not to mention the ops who insist on firing up ROS16 on 30m at 10141 right in the middle of a band full of PSK31 signals. de Laurie, VK3AMA Marco IK1ODO -2 wrote: At 10:00 01-03-10, G4JNT wrote: rgh I agree 100% :-) - it has become a sterile discussion, IMHO. 73 - Marco IK1ODO / AI4YF
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Path Simulations
Good tests, thanks Tony. On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Tony d...@optonline.net wrote: All, I ran several path tests with ROS-16 and Olivia 2K this evening. The simulator showed that Olivia is about as sensitive as ROS when configured to run at the same baud rate, but it is not as sensitive when configured to run at the same word-per-minute rate. Olivia 32/2K will runs about as fast as ROS, but it is roughly 5db less sensitive. Mode Sensitivity baud rateWPM Olivia 128/2K -14db163 times slower than ROS-16 Olivia 32/2K -10db64same as ROS-16 ROS-16 -15db 16
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Path Simulations
Hi Tony, you will have to repeat the test next days when i improve lenght interleaver as I had expected :-) The first think i said about ROS is that minimize the power at the same character/minute rate, and that is just what you are tester :-). You cannot match Washl Function FEC with Viterbi Algorithm. If you want OLIVIA be equal of robust that ROS you will have to transmit much slower than ROS necessarily. You can see as the different between OLIVIA and ROS is the not inconsiderable number of 5 dBs (3.2 times less power at the same character/minute). Equally, the next mode ROS 8 baudios/2250 Hz will be 3dBS better than ROS 16 baudios, but, obviusly is half as slow than ROS 16. You can not go against mathematics. About frequency spreading of 25 Hz, thats is a value exaggerated. Normally, the spread doppler is usually of 1 or 2 Hz in the higher bands of the HF. About ROS threshold, ROS is designed in a way that the Initial Acquisition Sequence poses no funnel. That is, the Initial sequence always has better sensitivity than the data demodulator. Sometimes you will see the initial sequence is activated but the data cannot be demodulated. This is how it should be. Good job, and i expect you repeat the test with the new improvements I am making. De: Tony d...@optonline.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: lun,1 marzo, 2010 23:29 Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS Path Simulations All, I ran several path tests with ROS-16 and Olivia 2K this evening. The simulator showed that Olivia is about as sensitive as ROS when configured to run at the same baud rate, but it is not as sensitive when configured to run at the same word-per-minute rate. Olivia 32/2K will runs about as fast as ROS, but it is roughly 5db less sensitive. Mode Sensitivity baud rate WPM Olivia 128/2K -14db 163 times slower than ROS-16 Olivia 32/2K -10db 64same as ROS-16 ROS-16 -15db 16 That increase in sensitivity seems to help ROS cope with certain poor channel conditions (as per the path simulator) compared to Olivia running at the same speed. In CCIR poor channel tests, for example, where selective fading sweeps across the channel, ROS printed better than Olivia 32/2K with low signal-to-noise ratios. On the other hand, Olivia 128/2K (16 baud) had an edge over ROS under the same conditions, albeit, with much slower throughput. In high-latitude tests, severe Doppler spread caused throughput to fall off dramatically with ROS indicating that it will likely fail over severely distorted polar paths. This occurred when the frequency spreading was above 25Hz (ITU-R high-latitude severe distortion). Olivia was not affected. I found that ROS will not recover after the signal drops below it's minimum decode threshold and will not trigger ROS to start receiving if the signal is not strong enough at the beginning of the transmission. I'm not sure if this is something inherent in the mode or if it's a bug in the software. I'm sure Jose can answer that. I should noted that Olivia 32/1K compares well with both ROS-16 and Olivia 2K modes in terms of poor channel throughput. Olivia 16/500 does a fine job as well. I suspect that ROS would perform well in an 8 baud / 1000Hz mode version. Many thanks to Jose for the new mode. Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Technical description for the FCC in the US
There is a technical descrption at http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/. I doesn't describe the start and stop tone sequences or completely describe the mapping from the convolutional encoder to the 128 tones used for data. However, it's more compete than some of the technical specifications on the ARRL web site. Perhaps he can add more detail in the future. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jbh...@bluefrog.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: AE5IL Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 20:27 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] ROS Technical description for the FCC in the US §97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions This is a one-stop Web site for technical characteristics called for in FCC rules § 97.309(a)(4), which reads: (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications. Documentation should be adequate to (a) recognize the technique or protocol when observed on the air, (b) determine call signs of stations in communication and read the content of the transmissions. Click on names of the techniques already documented: A technical description from you about ROS would help us in the US a lot. For other technical descriptions go to www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Alan, Of course, the FCC rules on SS are outdated and ROS should be allowed due to its narrow spreading range, but the road to success is not to just rename a spread spectrum modem to something else and try to fool the FCC. This is a sure way to lose the battle. The genie is already out of the bottle! Instead, just petition the FCC for a waiver, or amendment, to the regulations that are a problem, to allow FHSS as long as the spreading does not exceed 3000 Hz and the signal is capable of being monitored by third parties. Do this, and there is not a problem anymore. But, do not try to disguise the fact that FHSS is being used by calling it something else, as that undermines the credibilty of the author of the mode and will make the FCC even more determined not to it on HF/VHF. It looks to me that the tone frequencies are clearly being generated independently from the data and then the data applied to the randomly generated frequency. There is NO pattern to ROS like there is to FSK modes, even to 32 tone FSK (Olivia 32-1000) or to 64 tone FSK (MT63-2000). This is a signature of FHSS. “/If/ it walks /like a duck/, quacks /like a duck/, /looks like a duck/, it must be a /duck/”. It looks like ROS really is FHSS when you look at it on a spectrum analyzer, and the spectrum analyzer does not lie. 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: KH6TY wrote: The difference between ROS and MFSK16 at idle (i.e. no data input), is that MFSK16 has repetitive carriers in a pattern, but the ROS idle has no repetitive pattern and when data is input, the pattern still appears to be random. Note the additional carriers when I send six letter N's in MFSK16. It then returns to the repetitive pattern of an MFSK16 idle. Note that the data (i.e. N's created new carriers depending upon the data. In this case, the frequency carriers are data dependent. If ROS is just FSK144, then I expected to find a repeating pattern at idle, but I never see one, even after letting ROS idle for a long time in transmit. It's pretty common in modems to randomize the data to prevent carriers when sending all zero's or ones. Phone modems do it, I'm pretty sure P3 does, and other RF modems do. I know of another amateur RF modem that had randomized spectra by design. By this test it would have been considered spreadspectrum, but it was not, it was mfsk with a randomizer. The randomizing algorithm was provided to the FCC, and life was good. This was before SS was allowed at all, and there was not a bit of discussion that it might have been spread-spectrum. If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? All I know is, this is not the spread spectrum everyone is worried is going to ruin the bands! IE: traditional spread spectrum with bandwidth expansion of 100-1000. Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation): 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/SPECTRUM.JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS definitely is. Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is so wide. BTW, this same issue came up during the regulation by bandwidth debate when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow wideband, short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they last such a short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the same time, all together they can ruin communication for narrow modes, like PSK31. The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users of one mode be able to communicate with users of another mode in the same space so QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW used by both parties would make this possible. ROS does not work well in a crowded environment or with wideband QRM, so it must find a home relatively clear of other mode QRM. This is just another job the FCC must do in order to be sure a new mode does not create chaos. It has already been shown that leaving that up just to hams does not work, and the strongest try to take over the frequencies. upper 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/SPECTRUM.JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS definitely is. Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is so wide. BTW, this same issue came up during the regulation by bandwidth debate when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow wideband, short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they last such a short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the same time, all together they can ruin communication for narrow modes, like PSK31. The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users of one mode be able to communicate with users of another mode in the same space so QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW used by both parties would make this possible. ROS does not work well in a crowded environment or with wideband QRM, so it must find a home relatively clear of other mode QRM. This is just another job the FCC must do in order to be sure a new mode does not create chaos. It has already been shown that leaving that up just to hams does not work, and the strongest try to take over the frequencies. upper 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS definitely is. Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is so wide. BTW, this same issue came up during the regulation by bandwidth debate when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow wideband, short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they last such a short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the same time, all together they can ruin communication for narrow modes, like PSK31. The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users of one mode be able to communicate with users of another mode in the same space so QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW used by both parties would make this possible. ROS does not work well in a crowded environment or with wideband QRM, so it must find a home relatively clear of other mode QRM. This is just another job the FCC must do in order to be sure a new mode does not create chaos. It has already been shown that leaving that up just to hams does not work, and the strongest try to take over the frequencies. upper 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/SPECTRUM.JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS definitely is. Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is so wide. BTW, this same issue came up during the regulation by bandwidth debate when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow wideband, short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they last such a short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the same time, all together they can ruin communication for narrow modes, like PSK31. The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users of one mode be able to communicate with users of another mode in the same space so QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW used by both parties would make this possible. ROS does not work well in a crowded environment or with wideband QRM, so it must find a home relatively clear of other mode QRM
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS definitely is. Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is so wide. BTW, this same issue came up during the regulation by bandwidth debate when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow wideband, short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they last such a short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the same time, all together they can ruin communication
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Hi Warren, I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find. Olivia 32-1000: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/OLIVIA32-1000.JPG 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal
