That's a good analysis, Steinar. Is it possible to see if the pattern
changes when sending data? That is all the FCC is concerned about. The
pattern has to change when sending data and not just remain the same to
exclude it from being FHSS.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Steinar Aanesland wrote:
[Attachment(s) <#TopText> from Steinar Aanesland included below]
Hi Skip
I have been monitoring a ROS idling over time using DL4YHF's Spectrum
Lab. Here is the results.You can clearly see a pattern
73 de LA5VNA Steinar
On 26.02.2010 12:29, KH6TY wrote:
> 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 Of course, the FCC rules on SS are outdated and ROS should be allowed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
>
>
>
