Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
For the love of god, (just an expression) Will everyone please stop !! Over night I have received over 80 messages regarding this conflict. It is beyond a joke surely. I must admit that I haven't even read all the messages, but come on folks. This is getting out of hand. ROS seems to be no more than using a single frequency with a multi hop FSK signal that takes up an enormous band width. Ok so it is large but so are other modes such as mt63 or olivia 2000htz what is the problem. ? Use it where the band plans allow I.e. In the voice spectrum. Stop all this crap about it has to be in with other digi modes (does anyone have a problem with sstv in 14.230 as it is no where near the other digi modes.) It is not a spread spectrum frequency hopping mode, indeed it only transmits in the pass band that your radio is on, not frequency hopping as the FCC mentions. Give us all a break, please. If you don't want to use it, then fine. If you do, then fine. I'm sick and tired of opening my e-mail and seeing the same spiel as yesterday and the day before and the bloody week before that. Put it like this, if it is so bad and you call it spread spectrum frequency hopping mode. Then what is ALE and the like? Does it even look to see if the frequency is in use when it changes band automatically. I think not. Do the pactor stations give a damn when they blast my signal when working olivia, rtty, ROS, etc . NO Give it up people I remember starting in ham radio due to it's unusual regard for self bettering, understanding and experimenting. Not bureaucracy and the like. My 2p worth. I have had enough.Maybe Jose shouldn't have called it SSFH software but in the end it isn't. Done Had enough. T x --- ---Original Message--- From: John B. Stephensen Date: 24/02/2010 04:05:25 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` In order for amateurs in the U.S. to use any RTTY/data mode other than Baudot, ASCII or AMTOR over 2FSK they must be able to point to a published technical specification for the potocol that shows that it is legal. It was condition that we all agreed to when we were issued a license. When this is done the problem will be solved. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: John To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 03:41 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` OK, I am starting to agree with Dave now and with Andy as before ... this is starting to now become circular . It has now been solidly established that ROS is FSK, NOT SS, by the authors own words. The author NEVER approached the FCC for an OPINION about his unfinished work at all. Indeed he made it clear the whole thing was still BETA In the US, when has an OPINION of someone lower than the enforcing authority made anything legal or illegal? It was only an opinion of one of the agents (agent #3820) based on the incomplete data provided to them. had I been that agent, I would have said the same thing under the circumstances of only having incomplete, inaccurate documentation presented to me. Jose, the author, has already indicated he intends to correct the error in his updated documentation which should remove all questions about legality in the US. It is not necessary for him to provide anyone with his algorithm so long as he continues to provide his program so that anyone can monitor the transmissions. The transmissions all fall within FCC guidelines already, that has never been argued. The only real argument has been, is it SS or FSK If it is FSK, it is NOT illegal. The spread spectrum rule simply does not apply here. What more will the outcome of this discussion ultimately determine? Presently, the FCC is so understaffed due to budgetary constraints, my guess is that they really do not have the resources needed to chase such questionable things as this in the first place. Can anyone imagine our enforcement group is going to expend the kind of resources necessary to enforce something that is likely not really an issue in the first place? They are not there just sitting and waiting to jump on anyone potentially violating such a questionable matter in the first place. As for the requirements of how this software generates or does not generate it's spectrum should no longer even be a question since the only reason it was ever argued in the first place was based on the authors misunderstanding of OUR (the US) definition of SS versus FSK. Once he (the program author) understood the difference in that definition, he immediately noted his program was NOT SS at all, but was in fact FSK. Argument should be over? TRUE? NOT TRUE? Dave, where would we go from here . if we were in your country? John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: It is a NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT requirement (out of three). The point
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
My DELETE button HAS been getting a workout this week... ;-) Wes W1LIC From: Toby Burnett ruff...@hebrides.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, February 24, 2010 4:48:34 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` For the love of god, (just an expression) Will everyone please stop !! Over night I have received over 80 messages regarding this conflict. It is beyond a joke surely. I must admit that I haven't even read all the messages, but come on folks. This is getting out of hand. ROS seems to be no more than using a single frequency with a multi hop FSK signal that takes up an enormous band width. Ok so it is large but so are other modes such as mt63 or olivia 2000htz what is the problem. ? Use it where the band plans allow I.e. In the voice spectrum. Stop all this crap about it has to be in with other digi modes (does anyone have a problem with sstv in 14.230 as it is no where near the other digi modes.) It is not a spread spectrum frequency hopping mode, indeed it only transmits in the pass band that your radio is on, not frequency hopping as the FCC mentions. Give us all a break, please. If you don't want to use it, then fine. If you do, then fine. I'm sick and tired of opening my e-mail and seeing the same spiel as yesterday and the day before and the bloody week before that. Put it like this, if it is so bad and you call it spread spectrum frequency hopping mode. Then what is ALE and the like? Does it even look to see if the frequency is in use when it changes band automatically. I think not. Do the pactor stations give a damn when they blast my signal when working olivia, rtty, ROS, etc . NO Give it up people I remember starting in ham radio due to it's unusual regard for self bettering, understanding and experimenting. Not bureaucracy and the like. My 2p worth. I have had enough. Maybe Jose shouldn't have called it SSFH software but in the end it isn't. Done Had enough. T x --- ---Original Message- -- From: John B. Stephensen Date: 24/02/2010 04:05:25 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` In order for amateurs in the U.S. to use any RTTY/data mode other than Baudot, ASCII or AMTOR over 2FSK they must be able to point to a published technical specification for the potocol that shows that it is legal. It was condition that we all agreed to when we were issued a license. When this is done the problem will be solved. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: John To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 03:41 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` OK, I am starting to agree with Dave now and with Andy as before ... this is starting to now become circular . It has now been solidly established that ROS is FSK, NOT SS, by the authors own words. The author NEVER approached the FCC for an OPINION about his unfinished work at all. Indeed he made it clear the whole thing was still BETA In the US, when has an OPINION of someone lower than the enforcing authority made anything legal or illegal? It was only an opinion of one of the agents (agent #3820) based on the incomplete data provided to them. had I been that agent, I would have said the same thing under the circumstances of only having incomplete, inaccurate documentation presented to me. Jose, the author, has already indicated he intends to correct the error in his updated documentation which should remove all questions about legality in the US. It is not necessary for him to provide anyone with his algorithm so long as he continues to provide his program so that anyone can monitor the transmissions. The transmissions all fall within FCC guidelines already, that has never been argued. The only real argument has been, is it SS or FSK. If it is FSK, it is NOT illegal. The spread spectrum rule simply does not apply here. What more will the outcome of this discussion ultimately determine? Presently, the FCC is so understaffed due to budgetary constraints, my guess is that they really do not have the resources needed to chase such questionable things as this in the first place. Can anyone imagine our enforcement group is going to expend the kind of resources necessary to enforce something that is likely not really an issue in the first place? They are not there just sitting and waiting to jump on anyone potentially violating such a questionable matter in the first place. As for the requirements of how this software generates or does not generate it's spectrum should no longer even be a question since the only reason it was ever argued in the first place was based on the authors misunderstanding of OUR (the US) definition of SS versus FSK. Once he (the program author) understood the difference in that definition, he
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
A member of this group contacted the FCC, got a ruling, and published it here. Just remember that you have no legal defense if the FCC decides to take action. I keep replying to this stuff because some members of this group could led others into losing their licenses. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: ocypret To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 03:04 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, ocypret n5...@... wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? Wow! What a mess! I think absent a clear ruling from the FCC and as long as I think a plausible argument can be made for its compliance with Part 97, I'm going to use it. I made a contact this afternoon with PC5W on 20 meters. It looks like a good mode to use. Sorry for stirring up the firestorm again - I thought you guys had pretty much argued yourselves out or I wouldn't have posted the question. All the previous posting on this have left my head spinning. Wayne N5BZA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Actually, I'd like to have the regulations changed. However, the more that amateurs ignore existing regulations the less the FCC will trust us. The SS restriction is one of the few provisions that the FCC actually cares about. They have given a legal opinion and can monitor this mailing list to see whether people comply. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Dave Ackrill To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 20:48 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` John B. Stephensen wrote: A member of this group contacted the FCC, got a ruling, and published it here. Just remember that you have no legal defense if the FCC decides to take action. I keep replying to this stuff because some members of this group could led others into losing their licenses. On a 1st offence, even in the USA, I would expect a warning at least before the full force of the law was applied. Even over here it's rare for someone to be band for a technical infringement of the rules. I suspect a little over egging the pudding is going on... Maybe by people who, dare I say it, want to frighten others into not using the program? Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
I agree, and wager 6 months from now hardly anyone will be using ROS. And for those who say im gonna use it regardless of the FCC reply, well go ahead, start saving for your fine. 73 Buddy WB4M For the love of god, (just an expression) Will everyone please stop !! Over night I have received over 80 messages regarding this conflict. It is beyond a joke surely. I must admit that I haven't even read all the messages, but come on folks. This is getting out of hand. ROS seems to be no more than using a single frequency with a multi hop FSK signal that takes up an enormous band width. Ok so it is large but so are other modes such as mt63 or olivia 2000htz what is the problem. ? Use it where the band plans allow I.e. In the voice spectrum. Stop all this crap about it has to be in with other digi modes (does anyone have a problem with sstv in 14.230 as it is no where near the other digi modes.) It is not a spread spectrum frequency hopping mode, indeed it only transmits in the pass band that your radio is on, not frequency hopping as the FCC mentions. Give us all a break, please. If you don't want to use it, then fine. If you do, then fine. I'm sick and tired of opening my e-mail and seeing the same spiel as yesterday and the day before and the bloody week before that. Put it like this, if it is so bad and you call it spread spectrum frequency hopping mode. Then what is ALE and the like? Does it even look to see if the frequency is in use when it changes band automatically. I think not. Do the pactor stations give a damn when they blast my signal when working olivia, rtty, ROS, etc . NO Give it up people I remember starting in ham radio due to it's unusual regard for self bettering, understanding and experimenting. Not bureaucracy and the like. My 2p worth. I have had enough.Maybe Jose shouldn't have called it SSFH software but in the end it isn't. Done Had enough. T x
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
On 02/23/2010 06:14 PM, jose alberto nieto ros wrote: John, the only person in the world who know what is ROS is the person who have created it. And the creator say that ROS is a FSK of 144 tones with a Viterbi FEC Coder and a header of synchronization. Last week, you said that ROS was spread spectrum :) The FCC says that amateurs are responsible for judging whether or not the mode they use is spread spectrum. Until a technical specification of ROS is released, I will not be able to make that judgement for myself. I understand that you do not want to release the technical specifications before the protocol is finished and will wait patiently :) -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Only the ARRL technical staff has ruled it to be spread spectrum and therefore not legal on HF under FCC jurisdiction. However, the FCC itself has not ruled yet, so it may still be found to be legal. We will not know until the FCC issues an opinion. My personal guess is that they will say it is legal as long as the bandwidth never exceeds that of a SSB phone signal, even though it is FHSS. However, note that ROS cannot handle wide signal QRM, such as a 500 Hz-wide Pactor signal in the upper third of the signal width. The QRM-handling ability of spread spectrum is a function of the degree of spreading, compared to the width of interfering signals, and with only a 2500 Hz width to work with, it is only resistant to QRM from narrow modes, such as PSK31, but it is wide like Pactor-III, so it belongs in the highest segment of the data portions of the bands. Unfortunately, that is also where other wide modes hang out, so ROS will have to look for a home where there are few interfering signals. On 14.101, ROS had a lot of trouble from Pactor and even from multiple CW signals during the contest this past weekend. ROS would not print in the presence of the QRM and printed fine when the QRM left. I am hoping it has advantages for weak-signal work on UHF where it is inarguably legal. That is where I am going to use it. 73 - Skip KH6TY wd4kpd wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, ocypret n5...@... wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? it seems to be whatever you want ! david/wd4kpd
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz. So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is. e,g. If I came out with a new mode that was just CW, but claimed it was SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to get any use in the USA. Andy K3UK On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:15 PM, wd4kpd wd4...@suddenlink.net wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, ocypret n5...@... wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? it seems to be whatever you want ! david/wd4kpd
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Next step is to formally petition the FCC to allow SS if the bandwidth does not exceed 3000 Hz, or the width of a SSB phone signal. Mark Miller, N5RFX, has experience in submitting petitions to the FCC, and had one granted. In case anyone wishes to pursue this further, he may be able to help. If ROS is really worth saving for US hams, it is worth fighting for! 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz. So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is. e,g. If I came out with a new mode that was just CW, but claimed it was SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to get any use in the USA. Andy K3UK On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:15 PM, wd4kpd wd4...@suddenlink.net mailto:wd4...@suddenlink.net wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, ocypret n5...@... wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? it seems to be whatever you want ! david/wd4kpd
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
KH6TY wrote: Only the ARRL technical staff has ruled it to be spread spectrum and therefore not legal on HF under FCC jurisdiction. However, the FCC itself has not ruled yet, so it may still be found to be legal. We will not know until the FCC issues an opinion. My personal guess is that they will say it is legal as long as the bandwidth never exceeds that of a SSB phone signal, even though it is FHSS. I've just made a suggestion on the ROS Yahoo Group that the discussion may warrant its own Yahoo Group to debate the ins and outs of this question. It may be that, in the not so distant future, debates from others who are pro and anti the mode, based upon their reading of a variety of licence conditions in various countries, could then be directed to the area for debating these issues. Thus leaving the Digitalradio and ROSMODEM groups free to discuss the practicalities and enjoyment of using digital modes and ROS free from the endless debate about what is 'Illegal, immoral, or makes you fat'. Thanks - Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
John, the only person in the world who know what is ROS is the person who have created it. And the creator say that ROS is a FSK of 144 tones with a Viterbi FEC Coder and a header of synchronization. De: John ke5h...@taylorent.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:06 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Thank you Andy .. This has been the point of many [posters here all along. It is only considered spread spectrum because the author claimed it so, not because it is technically so. Jose, are you hearing us? because of the way your program operates an SSB transmitter, it should be defined as a form of FSK, NOT SPREAD SPECTRUM Many of us here in the US would like to use your program and experiment with it, but we are regulated by the FCC (we US hams did not write the rules we have to abide by). They determined it to be spread spectrum solely because you have declared it as such, and apparently for no other reason. Can you offer us some help here Jose? (like maybe recheck if it really is spread spectrum vs FSK) and re-write your description? Thanks, John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Andy obrien k3uka...@.. . wrote: The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz. So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is. e,g. If I came out with a new mode that was just CW, but claimed it was SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to get any use in the USA. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
John wrote: Can you offer us some help here Jose? (like maybe recheck if it really is spread spectrum vs FSK) and re-write your description? Unfortunately John, you cannot so easily put the genie back into the bottle. This is why I think you now need your own Yahoo Group to debate these questions, as it seems to be a USA centric debate that is almost taking over two Yahoo Groups some of whose users, I would suggest on my own behalf only, are now getting a bit tired of the debate. If you had your own group those who were interested could join and debate, organise their lobby groups, both for and against, rehearse their arguments and make their pontifications without troubling those who either could care less, or just want to get on with using Digitalradio modes on the air. Or, would the rest of the users of Digitalradio like to see this debate go on, and on, and on, as I think it will from my personal experience of such debates within the UK Amateur Radio population. Most notably the old uk.rec.radio mail group of fond, if acidic, memory... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
You can download ROS User Guide 1.0 The introduction explain what is ROS and It speak about a 144 tone FSK. In a few days a will write a introduction to FSK esquemes. Thanks. De: John ke5h...@taylorent.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:06 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Thank you Andy .. This has been the point of many [posters here all along. It is only considered spread spectrum because the author claimed it so, not because it is technically so. Jose, are you hearing us? because of the way your program operates an SSB transmitter, it should be defined as a form of FSK, NOT SPREAD SPECTRUM Many of us here in the US would like to use your program and experiment with it, but we are regulated by the FCC (we US hams did not write the rules we have to abide by). They determined it to be spread spectrum solely because you have declared it as such, and apparently for no other reason. Can you offer us some help here Jose? (like maybe recheck if it really is spread spectrum vs FSK) and re-write your description? Thanks, John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Andy obrien k3uka...@.. . wrote: The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz. So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is. e,g. If I came out with a new mode that was just CW, but claimed it was SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to get any use in the USA. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
This is partially a language problem. A complete block diagram of both the transmit and receive sides of the system would do wonders to clarify what the system actually is. The partial receive diagram surely looked like MSK to me. From: jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo.es Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:14:07 + (GMT) To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` John, the only person in the world who know what is ROS is the person who have created it. And the creator say that ROS is a FSK of 144 tones with a Viterbi FEC Coder and a header of synchronization. De: John ke5h...@taylorent.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:06 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Thank you Andy .. This has been the point of many [posters here all along. It is only considered spread spectrum because the author claimed it so, not because it is technically so. Jose, are you hearing us? because of the way your program operates an SSB transmitter, it should be defined as a form of FSK, NOT SPREAD SPECTRUM Many of us here in the US would like to use your program and experiment with it, but we are regulated by the FCC (we US hams did not write the rules we have to abide by). They determined it to be spread spectrum solely because you have declared it as such, and apparently for no other reason. Can you offer us some help here Jose? (like maybe recheck if it really is spread spectrum vs FSK) and re-write your description? Thanks, John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , Andy obrien k3uka...@.. . wrote: The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz. So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is. e,g. If I came out with a new mode that was just CW, but claimed it was SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to get any use in the USA. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
John wrote: Thanks Jose .. Now with that cleared up, can you make those corrections / re-definitions to your distributed documentation to reflect that it is indeed FSK rather than spread spectrum? That little detail from you, the author of the program, is what is causing such an uproar that is eliminating the use of your program on HF frequencies here in the USA. Oh dear, John, If you think that the people that oppose this in your country will just roll over now that Jose has made a statement that ROS is no longer Spread Spectrum, then I think that you are in for a bad surprise... In all my Amateur Radio life I have come to realise that some Radio Amateurs are intent on telling other Radio Amateurs what they (the others) can and cannot do. ROS has stirred up the 'You cannot do that' crowd and they have gained a victory in getting someone to say that it is illegal. The idea that Jose now says that it isn't what it was that he said it was originally will cut no ice with them, if I am any judge of the politics of Amateur Radio. The cry of 'It's illegal, it's immoral, or it makes you fat' has been raised and taken up by certain people who 'know best' what you all need to do in the USA. Now they have 1st blood in that it seems that 'someone' has come out and said it is illegal (whether or not they have the authority to say that is immaterial, someone with referent power has said it) and now you are on the defensive in trying to say that it was all a big mistake, Jose never meant to say what he said and it's all legal, honest... Until the UK licence was effectively deregulated, we used to get these debates all the time. In fact we still get them when people don't read the new conditions and refer back to old conditions, but that's just because it takes a while for some people to realise that the rules have changed. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Yes John. In the firt time, the document it was an introduction to SS, but the document didn't explain anything about Viterbi decoder, synronization, etc... ROS is not a SS modulation, ROS use Vitervi decoder for generate a matrix of 9x16 =144 tones but that is not SS. If a person send the incomplete file to the FFC without my authorization, that's is not my problem. He can send too to the FCC how work a racing car, for example. And in the second place, ROS is a beta version. That's mean that ROS is not finished yet, it is under experimentation. When I finish it then i will explain how work. De: John ke5h...@taylorent.com Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:51 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Thanks again Jose, I have all your documentation (current only) and I think this is where some of the confusion was created. part of your documentation clearly defines the transmissions as spread spectrum. In the true sense, this is not really correct as you have noted. In true spread spectrum, the instantaneous transmitted frequency is not necessarily random at all. Rather, the transmitter and receiver MUST be synchronized to a common pattern via an algorithm/code of some sort. Since your transmitter output frequency is determined only by the input tones, which are determined by the input data + FEC coding, it does NOT become SS, as you have correctly noted. It should not be necessary to jump through numerous legal hoops solely because someone else sent an unfinished document to the FCC and asked for a ruling. So far, there has been no ruling, only and opinion based on the data presented in the request. My suggestion would be simply remove any references to spread spectrum and change those references to FSK instead in ROS documentation v1.01. This should easily provide any US amateur plenty of backup to be able to show good faith that he is operating within the US FCC rules. Thanks again, John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, jose alberto nieto ros nietorosdj@ ... wrote: You can download ROS User Guide 1.0 The introduction explain what is ROS and It speak about a 144 tone FSK. In a few days a will write a introduction to FSK esquemes. Thanks. _ _ __ De: John ke5h...@... Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:06 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`  Thank you Andy .. This has been the point of many [posters here all along. It is only considered spread spectrum because the author claimed it so, not because it is technically so. Jose, are you hearing us? because of the way your program operates an SSB transmitter, it should be defined as a form of FSK, NOT SPREAD SPECTRUM Many of us here in the US would like to use your program and experiment with it, but we are regulated by the FCC (we US hams did not write the rules we have to abide by). They determined it to be spread spectrum solely because you have declared it as such, and apparently for no other reason. Can you offer us some help here Jose? (like maybe recheck if it really is spread spectrum vs FSK) and re-write your description? Thanks, John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Andy obrien k3ukandy@ . wrote: The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz. So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is. e,g. If I came out with a new mode that was just CW, but claimed it was SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to get any use in the USA. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
John wrote: This should easily provide any US amateur plenty of backup to be able to show good faith that he is operating within the US FCC rules. I think that you may be ignoring me John, and possibly for good reasons. However, and I do hate to be a wet blanket, but your opponents in the USA are not going to go away just because you want them to. And I talk as one who wants ROS to be legal in the USA, as well as everywhere else, so that we can all use the mode. Now that some people have it in their heads that ROS is Spread Spectrum you have an up hill task to persuade them that it isn't. You now also have a number of people who have all the ammunition to fire back if you say to the FCC that this isn't Spread Spectrum, as they've also seen the same communications on here that I have. Unfortunately, what we have now is some people who want to stop this mode of transmission in the USA who seem to have obtained a decree from a referent power that it is illegal. Unless you can get a retraction, or a decree from a higher authority, the Amateur Radio enthusiasts that wish to stop other Amateur Radio enthusiasts will just report the one lot of Radio Amateurs to the authorities in the hope that they will stop that lot of Radio Amateurs from enjoying the bands. To go back to a Stranger in a Strange Land, you will grok that some of us wish to hate the others. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Any petition should reduce regulation rather than increase its complexity by continually adding loopholes. ROS is not the only mode that is currently illegal -- there are single carrier PSK digital modes that U.S. amateurs can't use because of the baud rate limit. U.S. regulations should be harmonized with the rest of the world by eliminating baud rate restrictions and emission designators entirely. Outside the U.S., any form of modulation less than 8 kHz wide is allowed below 29 MHz. If we align our regulations with the rest of the world there will be no more legal problems with software written outside the U.S. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: KH6TY To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 22:59 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Next step is to formally petition the FCC to allow SS if the bandwidth does not exceed 3000 Hz, or the width of a SSB phone signal. Mark Miller, N5RFX, has experience in submitting petitions to the FCC, and had one granted. In case anyone wishes to pursue this further, he may be able to help. If ROS is really worth saving for US hams, it is worth fighting for! 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Dave, It is probably wrong to assume that there are any groups opposed to using ROS in the US. I don't see that at all. US hams generally try to follow the FCC regulations as best they can, and if they are not sure what they mean, they ask. If the reply is not to their liking, that is too bad, but they prefer to follow the law. I don't think it is any more complicated than that. The thing to do is be as smart as possible and do what is necessary to either get the FCC opinion reversed, or petition to allow spread spectrum (that can be monitored by third parties, as ROS already can be) if the bandwidth does not exceed the width of a SSB phone signal. The people at the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, which is probably the one that will finally interpret what you can and cannot do, are very reasonable, in my opinion, as I have had direct communications with them as an appointed member of the ARRL committee on regulation by bandwidth. Now is not the time to blame groups of different opinions for what has now been decided, but to work hard and as smart as possible to convince the FCC that it is OK to use ROS on HF. As I suggested to Jose, merely changing words, or blaming it on translation, is not going to succeed, in my opinion. Rather PROOF that it is not spread spectrum (i.e. does NOT meet condition #2) will probably do it, but just saying so will not. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave Ackrill wrote: John wrote: This should easily provide any US amateur plenty of backup to be able to show good faith that he is operating within the US FCC rules. I think that you may be ignoring me John, and possibly for good reasons. However, and I do hate to be a wet blanket, but your opponents in the USA are not going to go away just because you want them to. And I talk as one who wants ROS to be legal in the USA, as well as everywhere else, so that we can all use the mode. Now that some people have it in their heads that ROS is Spread Spectrum you have an up hill task to persuade them that it isn't. You now also have a number of people who have all the ammunition to fire back if you say to the FCC that this isn't Spread Spectrum, as they've also seen the same communications on here that I have. Unfortunately, what we have now is some people who want to stop this mode of transmission in the USA who seem to have obtained a decree from a referent power that it is illegal. Unless you can get a retraction, or a decree from a higher authority, the Amateur Radio enthusiasts that wish to stop other Amateur Radio enthusiasts will just report the one lot of Radio Amateurs to the authorities in the hope that they will stop that lot of Radio Amateurs from enjoying the bands. To go back to a Stranger in a Strange Land, you will grok that some of us wish to hate the others. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
John wrote: Hi HI Dave .. Unfortunately, you may indeed be right. As my posts on this topic speak for themselves, I never once stated either way if it was or was not legal. My question all along has been, did the law against the use of spread spectrum even apply in this case at all, based on what the program actually did, not what was claimed. As I read the FCC rules here in this country, the rule does NOT make a mode illegal because the author claimed it to be spread spectrum. It makes the transmission of spread spectrum signals on the HF amateur bands below 225-250 mhz. This program never did meet the test for making it actually spread spectrum other than the authors claim of it in his own documentation. Indeed, it is likely just a language barrier that is not all that uncommon. A simply translation issue should not really be labeled as egregious. As you imply, we will see how the nay say'ers fair in this. there are indeed those that can't bear to not be the ones in control of the crowd. Me, I really don't care one way or the other, but do prefer that real facts be discussed rather than conjured up arguments based on inapplicable rules. 73 sir Please, don't call me 'sir', in modern day UK, I don't call anyone 'Sir'... That may now be a cultural difference that I have to confront when I visit the Dayton Hamconvention later this year, but few people call other people 'Sir' over here now, unless it's a deference in a shop where a shop assistant is trying to pretend that the customer is King. As in Yes, Sir, what would Sir like? The pin-stripes might suit Sir best You are probably correct in saying that this whole debate was based upon a misunderstanding, but unfortunately that misunderstanding has now grown. Which is why I still suggest that, until it is properly resolved, it is probably off topic and needs its own forum. Regards Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
I think this disagreement will continue for some time. Me, I will be firing up in the HF bands in the near future. From: wd4kpd wd4...@suddenlink.net Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:15:50 - To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , ocypret n5...@... wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? it seems to be whatever you want ! david/wd4kpd
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Thanks Andy. Good readfinally. The whole issue goes away with the removal of a couple of words and a resubmit by the Author. No one sees SS and unless it's checked BY CHANCE, we can all run ROS contests and shut down RTTY for the weekends now, secure in the knowledge we are clean 'cause nowhere are the words Spread Spectrum mentioned. What? Don't Ask, Don't Tell?? Well, much of this country isn't very transparent in its dealings, no reason why something mundane like Ham Radio needs to be in this country either. Not with some Diplomats Without Portfolio expressing words of pity for the U.S. Ham. We'll just apply a li'l White Out, adapt and overcome and nobody would be the wiser. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV - Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz. So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is. e,g. If I came out with a new mode that was just CW, but claimed it was SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to get any use in the USA. Andy K3UK On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:15 PM, wd4kpd wd4...@suddenlink.net wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, ocypret n5...@... wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? it seems to be whatever you want ! david/wd4kpd
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
John wrote: So sorry Dave IN my country, it is still an expression of respect. Here we go with those pesky language barriers again ... HiHi I will try to be more irreverent, condescending, or rude when addressing you in the future . LOL John KE5HAM Please do, I appreciate your more open and honest approach. I remain, as ever, your most obedient and humble servant. You see how it can go? Believe me, English understated condescension of you when we seem to be so very polite is an art form. LOL Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
In order for amateurs in the U.S. to use any RTTY/data mode other than Baudot, ASCII or AMTOR over 2FSK they must be able to point to a published technical specification for the potocol that shows that it is legal. It was condition that we all agreed to when we were issued a license. When this is done the problem will be solved. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: John To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 03:41 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` OK, I am starting to agree with Dave now and with Andy as before ... this is starting to now become circular . It has now been solidly established that ROS is FSK, NOT SS, by the authors own words. The author NEVER approached the FCC for an OPINION about his unfinished work at all. Indeed he made it clear the whole thing was still BETA In the US, when has an OPINION of someone lower than the enforcing authority made anything legal or illegal? It was only an opinion of one of the agents (agent #3820) based on the incomplete data provided to them. had I been that agent, I would have said the same thing under the circumstances of only having incomplete, inaccurate documentation presented to me. Jose, the author, has already indicated he intends to correct the error in his updated documentation which should remove all questions about legality in the US. It is not necessary for him to provide anyone with his algorithm so long as he continues to provide his program so that anyone can monitor the transmissions. The transmissions all fall within FCC guidelines already, that has never been argued. The only real argument has been, is it SS or FSK. If it is FSK, it is NOT illegal. The spread spectrum rule simply does not apply here. What more will the outcome of this discussion ultimately determine? Presently, the FCC is so understaffed due to budgetary constraints, my guess is that they really do not have the resources needed to chase such questionable things as this in the first place. Can anyone imagine our enforcement group is going to expend the kind of resources necessary to enforce something that is likely not really an issue in the first place? They are not there just sitting and waiting to jump on anyone potentially violating such a questionable matter in the first place. As for the requirements of how this software generates or does not generate it's spectrum should no longer even be a question since the only reason it was ever argued in the first place was based on the authors misunderstanding of OUR (the US) definition of SS versus FSK. Once he (the program author) understood the difference in that definition, he immediately noted his program was NOT SS at all, but was in fact FSK. Argument should be over? TRUE? NOT TRUE? Dave, where would we go from here . if we were in your country? John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: It is a NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT requirement (out of three). The point is that if that is not the way the spreading is done in ROS, ROS is NOT spread spectrum. PROVE, not just claim, that it is not, and the battle is won. 73 - Skip KH6TY
