[digitalradio] Rethinking digital mode band plans-developing a solution
Andy: Your suggested band plan seems to me to be as good as any that I have seen and better than most that I have seen. I think it is unfortunate to have someone suggest a well thought out/workable plan and then watch it die for lack of support. It seems to me that the problem has been the lack of a organized group agreeing to stick with a band plan for long enough period of time for other hams to discover the plan being used and join with the original group. The above gives us a starting place and measuring devices to see if other hams will join us and follow the proposed (primarily digital modes) band plan. If the group grows then the plan is being adequately publicized and has become an established place for others to begin their foray into the digital modes. Recipe: Suggested plan published by someone on a well used forum a dozen or more operators agreeing a head of time to try the suggested plan keep the agreement to follow the suggested plan active for a month (adding users/followers along the way ) agree to meet at the end of the month in some prior arranged forum -- hash out the good and the bad for no longer than one week. If most people feel that the plan is a workable one, then keep the plan active for six months or so and publish the frequencies the frequencies agreed-upon on the forum on a daily basis. At this point in time we are talking primarily of Region Two. Regions One and Three already have plans in operation. Unless there is a good reason(s) to deviate (example: legal frequencies) from plans already operational, then make the proposed band plan follow the rest of the world. Dick, KC4COP
[digitalradio] A closer look at ROS [2 Attachments]
All, It would appear that ROS-16 is not much different than say Olivia 128 / 2K. The number of tones may differ, but they both use MFSK modulation with sequential tones running at 16 baud. The question is how can ROS be considered a SS frequency hoping mode while Olivia and it's derivatives are not? A closer look shows that they are quite similar (see attached). Tony -K2MO
[digitalradio] ARRL/TAPR 2009 Digital Conference DVDs Now Available
ARRL/TAPR 2009 Digital Conference DVDs Now Available Posted by: Gary Pearce KN4AQ kn...@arrl.net kn4aq Date: Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:18 am ((PST)) ARVN has released a new 6-DVD set of videos from the ARRL and TAPR 2009 Digital Communications Conference, held last September near Chicago. This year's conference didn't have as much D-STAR info as the 2008 DCC did. Tom Azlin N4ZPT has a presentation on using the DD mode and ID1's at the Marine Corps Marathon, and John Ronan EI7IG has been experimenting with what he calls Delay and Disruption Tolerant Networking in AX.25 and DSTAR Networks. Other topics presented include: equipment design and construction, Software Designed Radio, AMSAT/ARISSat, packet, advanced APRS, and Digital ATV. It's all interesting, but I found the Digital ATV presentations to be particularly new and intriguing. The six DVDs are organized around common topics. Each DVD has several presentations, and most presentations run about 45 minutes (good for club meeting programs, if your club leans a bit technical). You can buy individual DVDs covering the area you're interested in for $15 each (+ $3 shipping), or the whole set for $75 (but still just $3 shipping). The DVDs are produced in NTSC standard definition video. And a reminder that DVDS of the D-STAR presentations at the 2008 and 2009 Dayton Hamventions are also available. If you find yourself hungry for more D-STAR information, these DVDs should help fill you up (or at least keep you busy for a day). Free previews, details and ordering at: www.ARVideoNews.com. 73, Gary KN4AQ ARVN: Amateur Radio//Video News Gary Pearce KN4AQ 508 Spencer Crest Ct. Cary, NC 27513 mailto:kn...@arvidionews.comkn...@arvideonews.com 919-380-9944 www.ARVideoNews.com
[digitalradio] Version 1.0.6 crashing
My copy of ROS version 1.0.6 keeps crashing with the error message Run-time error '5' invalid procedure call or argument Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] Bill Gordon SK at 92 years Arecibo Observatory Designer
* * AP – FILE - This May 31, 2007 file photo shows the world's largest radio telescope -- the Arecibo Observatory … By MARY ESCH, Associated Press Writer Mary Esch, Associated Press Writer – Thu Feb 18, 5:53 pm ET ALBANY, N.Y. – Astronomer and engineer Bill Gordon, who designed the photogenic radio telescope in Puerto Rico that spotted the first planets beyond our solar system and lakes on one of Saturn's moons, has died in New York state. He was 92. Gordon died Tuesday of natural causes, according to officials at Cornell University in Ithaca, the Ivy League college where he served on the engineering faculty from 1953-66. He designed the Arecibo Observatory's radio telescope in the 1950s; it's a 1,000-foot-wide dish set in a sinkhole surrounded by forested hills. Within a year of opening, it was used to determine the planet Mercury's period of rotation. After radio pulsars — rotating neutron stars — were discovered in 1967, the observatory played a prominent role in studying their properties. The astronomers Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse discovered the first binary pulsar at Arecibo in 1974, leading to a 1993 Nobel Prize in physics. In 1990, Polish astronomer Aleksander Wolszczan used the telescope in the discovery of a pulsar in the constellation Virgo that was shown to be orbited by the first known planets beyond Earth's solar system. The telescope, owned by the National Science Foundation and operated by Cornell, had a prominent role in the 1997 Jodie Foster film Contact, based on a Carl Sagan book about the search for extraterrestrial life — a hunt that still continues at the observatory. In the 1995 James Bond movie GoldenEye, the telescope's platform figured in the climactic fight scene. When we were talking about building (the telescope) back in the late '50s, we were told by eminent authorities it couldn't be done, Gordon said at Arecibo's 40th Anniversary in 2003. We were in the position of trying to do something that was impossible, and it took a lot of guts and we were young enough that we didn't know we couldn't do it. These days, the telescope's work includes searching for asteroids and comets headed for Earth. It also discovered lakes of hydrocarbons on Saturn's moon Titan. Gordon was born in Paterson, N.J., and earned a bachelor's degree from Montclair State Teacher's College, a master's degree from New York University and his doctorate at Cornell. He was a professor and administrator at Rice University in Texas from 1966 until his retirement in 1985 73' Wilfredo Junior Aviles / KP4ARN Amateur Radio is the best way to know People and Travel around the World, FREE
[digitalradio] Re: [ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP] Version 1.6.5 crashing
Dave Ackrill wrote: My copy of ROS version 1.0.6 keeps crashing with the error message Run-time error '5' invalid procedure call or argument Sorry, that should, of course, be version 1.6.5! I'm getting my program versions mixed up... Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] ROS bug
It seems that an invalid procedure error occurs if the the two email addresses that appear in the @ macro for Baud 16 run together and the ending of the first one, does not get printed. e.g. emailaddr...@address.comemailaddress@address.com This is happened at the moment every time SV8CS sends his info with a weak signal. Perhaps it is two @ signs in the same string ? Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] ROS bug
Interesting. I go to tester. De: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Para: digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: dom,21 febrero, 2010 13:23 Asunto: [digitalradio] ROS bug It seems that an invalid procedure error occurs if the the two email addresses that appear in the @ macro for Baud 16 run together and the ending of the first one, does not get printed. e.g. emailaddress@ address.comemail addr...@address.com This is happened at the moment every time SV8CS sends his info with a weak signal. Perhaps it is two @ signs in the same string ? Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] ROS bug
Andy obrien wrote: It seems that an invalid procedure error occurs if the the two email addresses that appear in the @ macro for Baud 16 run together and the ending of the first one, does not get printed. e.g. emailaddr...@address.comemailaddress@address.com This is happened at the moment every time SV8CS sends his info with a weak signal. Perhaps it is two @ signs in the same string ? Thanks Andy, Looking at the screen grab I made of what was showing when the error occurred, I don't see two emails merged, but the last email address was missing the final '' and some garbled letters are showing. So, maybe ROS tripped up over that as a problem? I'll upload a copy of my screen grab to the pictures area. Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] New file uploaded to digitalradio
Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the digitalradio group. File: /ROS error pictures/Run-time error.jpg Uploaded by : g0dja dave.g0...@tiscali.co.uk Description : Picture of Run-time error at G0DJA You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/files/ROS%20error%20pictures/Run-time%20error.jpg To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles Regards, g0dja dave.g0...@tiscali.co.uk
[digitalradio] 10M open at the moment
Just worked ZS6WAB using JT65A on 10M. Am calling CQ using ROS on 28.300MHz if anyone is interested in trying out the mode on that band? Dave (G0DJA)
[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Thank you for your opinion, but need to be told to calm down as I am not excited! The FCC rules are plain and the description of ROS by the author is frequency hopping, whether within a phone signal bandwidth or not, so that identifies it as spread spectrum. I am sure the FCC rules were intended to prevent overly wide signals on HF using spread spectrum and therefore they only permit spread spectrum above 222 Mhz, where there is plenty of room. ROS is a really nice mode, but I will be using it only on 432 Mhz, in accordance with our FCC regulations. Others under FCC jurisdiction are welcome to use it at their own risk on HF. The current FCC rules are also probably intended to allow FCC monitoring which is not possible with conventional spread spectrum, so I hope the rules can be changed for spread spectrum modes like ROS which can be copied by third parties, but until that happens, rules are rules, and we are legally obligated to abide by them. 73 - Skip KH6TY kp4cb wrote: Ok calm down, que no panda el cunico como decia el chapulin, this mode is legal. Read this and you will know why is an article of the ARRL http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/Chip64.pdf --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: All, If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed carrier frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping is frequency hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the carriers are generated. That is really too bad for US hams as all morning I have been receiving alerts and printouts from many stations on 14.080 - many times when the ROS signal can hardly be heard above the noise. I'm afraid that Andy's concerns are real, and unless the FCC clarifies otherwise, ROS is currently illegal in the US in my personal opinion and interpretation of the FCC rules. However, it looks like a worthwhile mode to test on UHF (432 MHz) where SS is allowed and we will be doing that during our daily digital experiments every morning on 432.090 SSB. The Doppler shift, multipath distortion, and fast flutter, as well as QSB often as deep as 15 dB, often make even S3 phone signals unintelligible. We have been also been testing extensively with DominoEx 4 on FM (DominoEX does not survive Doppler shift well on SSB) and Olivia 16-500 and 4-500 on both FM and SSB, often with better copy than with SSB phone, and especially so when signals are near the noise threshold. The path length is 200 miles, so signals are usually near the noise threshold during these winter months where there is no propagation enhancement. I'll post the results of our tests on 432 MHz here during the next two weeks as we compare ROS to Olivia. So far, plain old CW can be copied when even Olivia cannot, but the CW note is very raspy sounding, much like it is during aroura communication. It would help a lot if it were possible to select alternate soundcards and many of us on UHF and VHF are using a second soundcard for digital operations. 73 - Skip KH6TY nietorosdj wrote: One comment: It is not the same a Spread Spectrum Transceiver (like military radios) that to send digital data into an audio channel on standard SSB transceiver. They are different things. So, when we read Spread Spectrum is not legal, first we must know what we are reading. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3ukandy@ wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA-?o=6 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA-?o=6Joe, N8FQ... http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF. Is there another part of part 97 I am missing ? Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Digital modes band plans.
Bruce, Could you mention 'where' these coments are posted at so that I can read them personally? I don't need names or call signs but would like to read more about that as I hadn't heard about it being proposed for the 6 and 2m bands at all. James W8ISS = On Saturday 20 February 2010 10:33:32 bruce mallon wrote: I remember several spredsprectum people commenting that they didn't care if they obliterated legacy modes. --- On Sat, 2/20/10, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote: From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Subject: [digitalradio] Digital modes band plans. To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, February 20, 2010, 9:45 AM On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 8:54 AM, bruce mallon wa4...@yahoo. com wrote: SO what you are saying is lets ctush the other modes so we can play with our new toy ? We just went through this with wideband/spredsprec trum on 6 and 2 meters . I dont care what mode anyone uses as long as it does not cause problems for others. SHOW THE FCC IT WILL NOT CAUSE PROBLEMS and go from there ... Showing that each mode should not cause problems, is not an FCC or IARU requirement , if by problems you mean that people get upset when it is used on their frequency. It IS a problem if people use any mode without checking to see that the frequency is clear, but other than that... staying within the allocated part of the band, is all we are expected to do. It makes sense to stay clear of known sections, like the PSK31 area, JT65A areas, RTTY DX calling area, but ROS has as much right to be used within a ham's allocated part of the band, as any other digital mode. Just listen first, and use it (if legal in your country). Andy K3UK Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html 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/
[digitalradio] Draft digital band plan (feedback solicited)
I took a look at the IARU Region 1 and Region 2 band plans, removed areas where there are clear differences (30, 40 and 160, I'll work on them later) , and produced a plan that is compatible with these two regions (I'll look at other regions). While doing this, and thinking how easy the task was, I realized that the USA may not actually follow their own region's plan. I'll look at that next. I am now off to find the USA band plan approved by the FCC and find where is differs. Then, focus on where it agrees. However, for a start...what is wrong with this suggested plan for digital modes? Could we live with this if individual countries allowed the use of the band segments ? 80M 3580 3590 Narrow digi modes 500 hz (R1, R2) 3590-3600 unattended digimode stations 500 hz (R1 R2) 3600-3620 wide digi modes modes including unattended digital stations (R1 R2) Details: 3580-3581 WSPR 3582-3583 JT65A 3583-3586 PSK31 3586-3590 Digi modes Under 500Hz, Olivia, Throb, Throbx, Hell, Thor, ALE400, PSK 125-500, Chip. 3590-3600 RTTY and unattended digital modes 500 Hz 3600-3620 WINMOR BBS, PACTOR BBS, ALE . Olivia, DominoEX, Thor, ROS 16 and other digital modes 500 to 2700 Hz 20M 14070-14089 Narrow digi modes 500 hz (R1, R2) 14089-14099 unattended digimode stations 500 hz (R1 R2) 14101-14112 Wide digi modes modes 2700 Hz including unattended digital stations (R1 R2) Details: 14070-14073 PSK31 14075-14076 -WSPR 14076-14077 JT65A 14077-14080 Digi modes Under 500Hz, Olivia, Throb, Throbx, Hell, Thor, ALE400, PSK 125-500, Chip. 14080-14089 RTTY and unattended digital modes 500 Hz 14093-14096 PACKET 14096-14099 RTTY and unattended digital modes 500 Hz 14101-14112 WINMOR BBS, PACTOR BBS, ALE . Olivia, DominoEX, Thor, ROS 16 and other digital modes 500 to 2700 Hz 17M 18095-18105 Narrow digi modes 500 hz (R1, R2) 18105-18109 unattended digimode stations 500 hz (R1 R2) 18111-18120 Wide digi modes modes 2700 Hz including unattended digital stations (R1 R2) Details: 18095-18096 -WSPR 18096-18102- PSK31 18102 18103- JT65A 18103-18105 Digi modes Under 500Hz, Olivia, Throb, Throbx, Hell, Thor, ALE400, PSK 125-500, Chip. 18105-14109 RTTY and unattended digital modes including 300 baud packet 500 Hz 18111-19120 WINMOR BBS, PACTOR BBS, ALE . Olivia, DominoEX, Thor, ROS 16 and other digital modes 500 to 2700 Hz 15M 21070-21090 Narrow digi modes 500 hz (R1, R2) 21090-21110 unattended digimode stations 500 hz (R1 R2) 21110=21120 Wide digi modes modes 2700 Hz including unattended digital stations (R1 R2) Details: 21070-21073 PSK31 21074-21075 WSPR 21075-21076 JT65A 21076-21080 Digi modes Under 500Hz, Olivia, Throb, Throbx, Hell, Thor, ALE400, PSK 125-500, Chip. 21080-21090 RTTY 21090-21110 RTTY and unattended digital modes including 300 baud packet 500 Hz 21110-21120 WINMOR BBS, PACTOR BBS, ALE . Olivia, DominoEX, Thor, ROS 16 and other digital modes 500 to 2700 Hz 12M 24915-24925 Narrow digi modes 500 hz (R1, R2) 24925-24929 unattended digimode stations 500 hz (R1 R2) 24931-24940 Wide digi modes modes 2700 Hz including unattended digital stations (R1 R2) 24918-24919 WSPR/QRSs 24919-24920 JT65A 24921-24924 PSK31 24924-24929 RTTY -28085 Under 500Hz, Olivia, Throb, Throbx, Hell, Thor, ALE400, PSK 125-500, Chip. 28085-28095 RTTY 28095-28100 Packet BBS 28100-28120 RTTY 28120-28150 WINMOR BBS, PACTOR BBS, ALE . Olivia, DominoEX, Thor, ROS 16 and other digital modes 500 to 2700 Hz 10M 28070-28120 Narrow digi modes 500 hz (R1, R2) 28120-28150 unattended digimode stations 500 hz (R1 R2) 28300-28320 Wide digi modes modes 2700 Hz including unattended digital stations (R1 R2) DETAILS 28070-28073 PSK31 28074-28075 WSPR/QRSs/ 28076-28077 JT65A 28077-28085 Under 500Hz, Olivia, Throb, Throbx, Hell, Thor, ALE400, PSK 125-500, Chip. 28085-28095 RTTY 28095-28100 Packet BBS 28100-28120 RTTY 28120-28150 WINMOR BBS, PACTOR BBS, ALE . Olivia, DominoEX, Thor, ROS 16 and other digital modes 500 to 2700 Hz Narrow band digital modes All modes using up to 500 Hz bandwidth, including , RTTY, PSK31 etc. Wide Digimodes Any digital mode used within the appropriate bandwidth up to 2700 Hz , for example ALE, ROS16,, Olivia 1000/32, WINMOR, MT63 etc.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS - make it legal in USA
The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3 Definitions, Para C, line 8: (8) SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. ROS uses SSB so the first designator is J (this meets the definition) and it uses bandwidth-expansion. (this meets that definition as well) Thus, taking this definition literally, it is indeed Spread Spectrum and is thus illegal below 222MHzat least that the conservative interpretation that I'll stick with until we get a ruling otherwise. Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky On 21 Feb, at 2:45 AM, J. Moen wrote: What is the FCC definition of spread spectrum, and where can it be located on the internet? Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: John B. Stephensen To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 7:58 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS - make it legal in USA ROS is MFSK16 with frequency hopping so it is SS per the FCC definition as the bandwidth is expanded. However, the FCC never fined anyone during the period when Hellscreiber was used illegally so I doubt that they would do so with ROS. What ROS users should do is email their ARRL representative and have them petition the FCC to change the rules. One solution is to eliminate the emission designators and change the RTTY/data segment of each HF band to 0-500 Hz wide emissions and the phone/image of each HF band to 0-8 kHz wide emissions with 0-20 kHz above 29 MHz. 73, John KD6OZH
[digitalradio] ROS 1baud @ 18.115 MHz
Hi calling cq on 18.115 in ROS mode now la5vna Steinar
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
I'm with you, Skip. While I appreciate the effort Jose put into this mode, I won't be using it on HF. The article quoted as justification of the legality of ROS was written by the Italian developer of Chip64 who is not under the jurisdiction of the FCC. The ARRL lists it only as a technical reference to the mode. Since the ARRL is NOT the regulatory agency, it really only matters what shows up in Part 97; and under Part 97, Chip64 is also illegal on HF in the US. Dave K3DCW On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:15 AM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: Thank you for your opinion, but need to be told to calm down as I am not excited! The FCC rules are plain and the description of ROS by the author is frequency hopping, whether within a phone signal bandwidth or not, so that identifies it as spread spectrum. I am sure the FCC rules were intended to prevent overly wide signals on HF using spread spectrum and therefore they only permit spread spectrum above 222 Mhz, where there is plenty of room. ROS is a really nice mode, but I will be using it only on 432 Mhz, in accordance with our FCC regulations. Others under FCC jurisdiction are welcome to use it at their own risk on HF. The current FCC rules are also probably intended to allow FCC monitoring which is not possible with conventional spread spectrum, so I hope the rules can be changed for spread spectrum modes like ROS which can be copied by third parties, but until that happens, rules are rules, and we are legally obligated to abide by them. 73 - Skip KH6TY kp4cb wrote: Ok calm down, que no panda el cunico como decia el chapulin, this mode is legal. Read this and you will know why is an article of the ARRL http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/Chip64.pdf Recent Activity: - New Membershttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm5zbWZkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY3NTgxNDY-?o=6 14 - New Fileshttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbWY1bHZtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 3 Visit Your Grouphttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMTRkYnI3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Start a New Topichttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMjd2ZG1tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html [image: Yahoo! Groups]http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcGJvazlrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 Switch to: Text-Onlydigitalradio-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=change+delivery+format:+Traditional, Daily Digestdigitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=email+delivery:+Digest• Unsubscribe digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=unsubscribe• Terms of Use http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ . -- hfradio...@gmail.com It isn't radio unless it bounces off the sky
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
I agree Dave, and Chip64 was abandoned over here on the same basis! ROS looks like a fun mode, so I hope the FCC will allow it in the future. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave Wright wrote: I'm with you, Skip. While I appreciate the effort Jose put into this mode, I won't be using it on HF. The article quoted as justification of the legality of ROS was written by the Italian developer of Chip64 who is not under the jurisdiction of the FCC. The ARRL lists it only as a technical reference to the mode. Since the ARRL is NOT the regulatory agency, it really only matters what shows up in Part 97; and under Part 97, Chip64 is also illegal on HF in the US. Dave K3DCW On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:15 AM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh...@comcast.net wrote: Thank you for your opinion, but need to be told to calm down as I am not excited! The FCC rules are plain and the description of ROS by the author is frequency hopping, whether within a phone signal bandwidth or not, so that identifies it as spread spectrum. I am sure the FCC rules were intended to prevent overly wide signals on HF using spread spectrum and therefore they only permit spread spectrum above 222 Mhz, where there is plenty of room. ROS is a really nice mode, but I will be using it only on 432 Mhz, in accordance with our FCC regulations. Others under FCC jurisdiction are welcome to use it at their own risk on HF. The current FCC rules are also probably intended to allow FCC monitoring which is not possible with conventional spread spectrum, so I hope the rules can be changed for spread spectrum modes like ROS which can be copied by third parties, but until that happens, rules are rules, and we are legally obligated to abide by them. 73 - Skip KH6TY kp4cb wrote: Ok calm down, que no panda el cunico como decia el chapulin, this mode is legal. Read this and you will know why is an article of the ARRL http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/Chip64.pdf http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/Chip64.pdf Recent Activity: * New Members http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm5zbWZkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY3NTgxNDY-?o=6 14 * New Files http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbWY1bHZtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 3 Visit Your Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMTRkYnI3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Start a New Topic http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMjd2ZG1tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Yahoo! Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcGJvazlrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 Switch to: Text-Only mailto:digitalradio-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=change+delivery+format:+Traditional, Daily Digest mailto:digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=email+delivery:+Digest • Unsubscribe mailto:digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=unsubscribe • Terms of Use http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ . -- hfradio...@gmail.com mailto:hfradio...@gmail.com It isn't radio unless it bounces off the sky
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
I feel really pity for you , my American HAM friends 73 de la5vna Steinar On 21.02.2010 14:23, Dave Wright wrote: I'm with you, Skip. While I appreciate the effort Jose put into this mode, I won't be using it on HF. The article quoted as justification of the legality of ROS was written by the Italian developer of Chip64 who is not under the jurisdiction of the FCC. The ARRL lists it only as a technical reference to the mode. Since the ARRL is NOT the regulatory agency, it really only matters what shows up in Part 97; and under Part 97, Chip64 is also illegal on HF in the US. Dave K3DCW On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:15 AM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: Thank you for your opinion, but need to be told to calm down as I am not excited! The FCC rules are plain and the description of ROS by the author is frequency hopping, whether within a phone signal bandwidth or not, so that identifies it as spread spectrum. I am sure the FCC rules were intended to prevent overly wide signals on HF using spread spectrum and therefore they only permit spread spectrum above 222 Mhz, where there is plenty of room. ROS is a really nice mode, but I will be using it only on 432 Mhz, in accordance with our FCC regulations. Others under FCC jurisdiction are welcome to use it at their own risk on HF. The current FCC rules are also probably intended to allow FCC monitoring which is not possible with conventional spread spectrum, so I hope the rules can be changed for spread spectrum modes like ROS which can be copied by third parties, but until that happens, rules are rules, and we are legally obligated to abide by them. 73 - Skip KH6TY kp4cb wrote: Ok calm down, que no panda el cunico como decia el chapulin, this mode is legal. Read this and you will know why is an article of the ARRL http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/Chip64.pdf Recent Activity: - New Membershttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm5zbWZkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY3NTgxNDY-?o=6 14 - New Fileshttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbWY1bHZtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 3 Visit Your Grouphttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMTRkYnI3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Start a New Topichttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMjd2ZG1tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html [image: Yahoo! Groups]http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcGJvazlrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 Switch to: Text-Onlydigitalradio-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=change+delivery+format:+Traditional, Daily Digestdigitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=email+delivery:+Digest• Unsubscribe digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=unsubscribe• Terms of Use http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ . Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html 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/
[digitalradio] Question (2nd try)
Hi all I have a question. I own 4 cd's with modulation types from Klingenfuss publication. Part 1 and 2 are with a black label, 3 and 4 are with an orange one. I do not have the original booklets anymore. Can anybody send me a list what's on the cd's ? Regards, Pieter www.shortwavemonitor.com image001.gif
[digitalradio] Draft USA digital band plan (feedback solicited)
OK, while the USA drifts from the suggested IARU Region 2 band plan, here is an almost compatible digital band plan, Compatible with the Region 1 and Region 2 bandplan for digital modes with a couple of exceptions where wide and narrow digital modes are mixed . I mixed them because the USA has less room for them. Also one of my suggested JT65A frequencies for WSPR and JT65A would differ from current practice in the USA. IF USA hams followed this suggested plan, it would be broadly compatible with Europe's digital plan and would provide a basis for the addition of new modes and illustrate regions for suggested calling frequencies. Surely too simple? Feedback ? (I can hear Bonnie saying I told you so ) 80M 3580 3583 Weak signal Narrow digi modes 500 hz 3583 -3590 digimode stations 500 hz 3590-3600 Unattended , wide digital modes Details: 3580-3581 WSPR 3582-3583 JT65A 3583-3586 PSK31 3586-3590 Digi modes Under 500Hz, Olivia, Throb, Throbx, Hell, Thor, ALE400, PSK 125-500, Chip. 3590-3600 RTTY and unattended digital modes 2700 Hz WINMOR BBS, PACTOR BBS, ALE . Olivia, DominoEX, Thor, ROS 16 . 20M 14070-14089 Narrow digi modes 500 hz (R1, R2) 14089-14099 unattended digimode stations 500 hz 14101-14112 Wide digi modes modes 2700 Hz including unattended digital stations Details: 14070-14073 PSK31 14075-14076 -WSPR 14076-14077 JT65A 14077-14080 Digi modes Under 500Hz, Olivia, Throb, Throbx, Hell, Thor, ALE400, PSK 125-500, Chip. 14080-14089 RTTY and unattended digital modes 500 Hz 14093-14096 PACKET 14096-14099 RTTY and unattended digital modes 500 Hz 14101-14112 WINMOR BBS, PACTOR BBS, ALE . Olivia, DominoEX, Thor, ROS 16 and other digital modes 500 to 2700 Hz 17M 18095-18105 Narrow digi modes 500 hz 18105-18110 RTTY and unattended digimode stations 2700 Details: 18095-18096 -WSPR 18096-18102- PSK31 18102 18103- JT65A 18103-18105 Digi modes Under 500Hz, Olivia, Throb, Throbx, Hell, Thor, ALE400, PSK 125-500, Chip. 18105-18110 RTTY and unattended digital modes including WINMOR BBS, PACTOR BBS, ALE . Wide Olivia, DominoEX, Thor, ROS 16 and other digital modes 500 to 2700 Hz 15M 21070-21090 Narrow digi modes 500 hz 21090-21110 unattended digimode stations 500 hz 21110=21120 Wide digi modes modes 2700 Hz including unattende digital stations Details: 21070-21073 PSK31 21074-21075 WSPR 21075-21076 JT65A 21076-21080 Digi modes Under 500Hz, Olivia, Throb, Throbx, Hell, Thor, ALE400, PSK 125-500, Chip. 21080-21090 RTTY 21090-21110 RTTY and unattended digital modes including 300 baud packet 500 Hz 21110-21120 WINMOR BBS, PACTOR BBS, ALE . Olivia, DominoEX, Thor, ROS 16 and other digital modes 500 to 2700 Hz 12M 24915-24925 Narrow digi modes 500 hz (R1, R2) 24925-24930 unattended digimode stations 500 hz Details 24918-24919 WSPR/QRSs 24919-24920 JT65A 24921-24923 PSK31 24923-24925 Digi modes Under 500Hz, Olivia, Throb, Throbx, Hell, RTTY Thor, ALE400, PSK 125-500, Chip. 24925-24930 WINMOR BBS, PACTOR BBS, ALE . Olivia, DominoEX, Thor, ROS 16 and other digital modes 500 to 2700 Hz 10M 28070-28120 Narrow digi modes 500 hz 28120-28150 unattended digimode stations 2700z DETAILS 28070-28073 PSK31 28074-28075 WSPR/QRSs/ 28076-28077 JT65A 28077-28085 Under 500Hz, Olivia, Throb, Throbx, Hell, Thor, ALE400 , PSK 125-500, Chip. 28085-28095 RTTY 28095-28100 Packet BBS 28100-28120 RTTY 28120-28123 Digimodes Novice section Digimodes 2700 PSK31, RTTY, Olivia, ROS 16, THOR, Throbx, Hell 28123-28150 WINMOR BBS, PACTOR BBS, ALE . Olivia, DominoEX, Thor, ROS 16 and other digital modes 500 to 2700 Hz Narrow band digital modes All modes using up to 500 Hz bandwidth,including , RTTY, PSK31 etc. Wide Digimodes Any digital mode used within the appropriate bandwidth up to 2700 Hz , for example ALE, ROS16,, Olivia 1000/32, WINMOR, MT63 etc.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Thank you, Steinar, but there have been serious attempts to dominate the HF bands with wideband modes for what is basically a private system use, and the FCC acted to protect the bands from that abuse, so while it is sad for us right now, what the FCC has done in the past has protected all hams worldwide from such abuses, even if you do not realize it. I do think ROS should be allowed, but until fully reviewed by the FCC, their are correct in not allowing ROS to be used except on an experimental basis. Believe me, there are much more dangerous fish in the sea! 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: I feel really pity for you , my American HAM friends 73 de la5vna Steinar On 21.02.2010 14:23, Dave Wright wrote: I'm with you, Skip. While I appreciate the effort Jose put into this mode, I won't be using it on HF. The article quoted as justification of the legality of ROS was written by the Italian developer of Chip64 who is not under the jurisdiction of the FCC. The ARRL lists it only as a technical reference to the mode. Since the ARRL is NOT the regulatory agency, it really only matters what shows up in Part 97; and under Part 97, Chip64 is also illegal on HF in the US. Dave K3DCW On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:15 AM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: Thank you for your opinion, but need to be told to calm down as I am not excited! The FCC rules are plain and the description of ROS by the author is frequency hopping, whether within a phone signal bandwidth or not, so that identifies it as spread spectrum. I am sure the FCC rules were intended to prevent overly wide signals on HF using spread spectrum and therefore they only permit spread spectrum above 222 Mhz, where there is plenty of room. ROS is a really nice mode, but I will be using it only on 432 Mhz, in accordance with our FCC regulations. Others under FCC jurisdiction are welcome to use it at their own risk on HF. The current FCC rules are also probably intended to allow FCC monitoring which is not possible with conventional spread spectrum, so I hope the rules can be changed for spread spectrum modes like ROS which can be copied by third parties, but until that happens, rules are rules, and we are legally obligated to abide by them. 73 - Skip KH6TY kp4cb wrote: Ok calm down, que no panda el cunico como decia el chapulin, this mode is legal. Read this and you will know why is an article of the ARRL http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/Chip64.pdf Recent Activity: - New Membershttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm5zbWZkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY3NTgxNDY-?o=6 14 - New Fileshttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbWY1bHZtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 3 Visit Your Grouphttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMTRkYnI3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Start a New Topichttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMjd2ZG1tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html [image: Yahoo! Groups]http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcGJvazlrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 Switch to: Text-Onlydigitalradio-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=change+delivery+format:+Traditional, Daily Digestdigitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=email+delivery:+Digest• Unsubscribe digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=unsubscribe• Terms of Use http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ . Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: I agree Dave, and Chip64 was abandoned over here on the same basis! I remember trying Chip64 without worrying about whether it was legal. I got the impression it was abandoned just because it didn't work very well compared to some of the other modes that came out about the same time. Jim W6JVE
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
At 09:17 AM 2/21/2010, you wrote: Thank you, Steinar, but there have been serious attempts to dominate the HF bands with wideband modes for what is basically a private system use. Do you think Skip that she will ever get it done? I was told not long ago that they (she) was about to ask the FCC to set aside a small part of the band just for their mode. Of course I passed it off as PURE B-S but would not put it passed her to try it. John, W0JAB Louisiana, Missouri
[digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA? Letter to FCC
I have compiled a letter to Laura Smith Esq, at the FCC, with details of this mode. I will let you all know when I receive a reply. Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies
Actually John, I am beginning to think that there could be merit in protecting some frequencies for certain use . Maybe the PACTOR, WINMOR, PACKET, ALE, PSKMAIL, unattended stations SHOULD get a small slice of spectrum. They would help in the event of emergencies , and keep the rest of band free of QRM from them. There perhaps could be some threshold to meet in terms of usage and in determining which method is worthy of protecting. I'd suggest that they get 5kHZ of 80M, 60M (yes , 60) , 20, and 10 , no other bands. Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB w0...@... wrote: At 09:17 AM 2/21/2010, you wrote: Thank you, Steinar, but there have been serious attempts to dominate the HF bands with wideband modes for what is basically a private system use. Do you think Skip that she will ever get it done? I was told not long ago that they (she) was about to ask the FCC to set aside a small part of the band just for their mode. Of course I passed it off as PURE B-S but would not put it passed her to try it. John, W0JAB Louisiana, Missouri
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Hi Skip But why is a mode like WINMOR allowed in US? I know it is not SS , but you can't monitor the traffic. If I have not totally misunderstood, that is one of the criteria for using a digi mode on the band. Just a thought , but it seems that some part of the FCC rules are more important to follow than others. 73 la5vna Steinar On 21.02.2010 16:17, KH6TY wrote: Thank you, Steinar, but there have been serious attempts to dominate the HF bands with wideband modes for what is basically a private system use, and the FCC acted to protect the bands from that abuse, so while it is sad for us right now, what the FCC has done in the past has protected all hams worldwide from such abuses, even if you do not realize it. I do think ROS should be allowed, but until fully reviewed by the FCC, their are correct in not allowing ROS to be used except on an experimental basis. Believe me, there are much more dangerous fish in the sea! 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: I feel really pity for you , my American HAM friends 73 de la5vna Steinar On 21.02.2010 14:23, Dave Wright wrote: I'm with you, Skip. While I appreciate the effort Jose put into this mode, I won't be using it on HF. The article quoted as justification of the legality of ROS was written by the Italian developer of Chip64 who is not under the jurisdiction of the FCC. The ARRL lists it only as a technical reference to the mode. Since the ARRL is NOT the regulatory agency, it really only matters what shows up in Part 97; and under Part 97, Chip64 is also illegal on HF in the US. Dave K3DCW On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:15 AM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: Thank you for your opinion, but need to be told to calm down as I am not excited! The FCC rules are plain and the description of ROS by the author is frequency hopping, whether within a phone signal bandwidth or not, so that identifies it as spread spectrum. I am sure the FCC rules were intended to prevent overly wide signals on HF using spread spectrum and therefore they only permit spread spectrum above 222 Mhz, where there is plenty of room. ROS is a really nice mode, but I will be using it only on 432 Mhz, in accordance with our FCC regulations. Others under FCC jurisdiction are welcome to use it at their own risk on HF. The current FCC rules are also probably intended to allow FCC monitoring which is not possible with conventional spread spectrum, so I hope the rules can be changed for spread spectrum modes like ROS which can be copied by third parties, but until that happens, rules are rules, and we are legally obligated to abide by them. 73 - Skip KH6TY kp4cb wrote: Ok calm down, que no panda el cunico como decia el chapulin, this mode is legal. Read this and you will know why is an article of the ARRL http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/Chip64.pdf Recent Activity: - New Membershttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm5zbWZkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY3NTgxNDY-?o=6 14 - New Fileshttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbWY1bHZtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 3 Visit Your Grouphttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMTRkYnI3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Start a New Topichttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMjd2ZG1tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html [image: Yahoo! Groups]http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcGJvazlrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 Switch to: Text-Onlydigitalradio-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=change+delivery+format:+Traditional, Daily Digestdigitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=email+delivery:+Digest• Unsubscribe digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=unsubscribe• Terms of Use http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ . Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Yahoo! Groups Links Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html 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
RE: [digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies
[I'd suggest that they get 5kHZ of 80M, 60M (yes , 60) , 20, and 10 , no other bands.] ditto, Norway es I think Bangladesh are not cursed to 60M channelized purgatory. Wakeup FCC. rgrds Craig kq6i -Original Message- From: obrienaj [mailto:k3uka...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 8:51 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies Actually John, I am beginning to think that there could be merit in protecting some frequencies for certain use . Maybe the PACTOR, WINMOR, PACKET, ALE, PSKMAIL, unattended stations SHOULD get a small slice of spectrum. They would help in the event of emergencies , and keep the rest of band free of QRM from them. There perhaps could be some threshold to meet in terms of usage and in determining which method is worthy of protecting. I'd suggest that they get 5kHZ of 80M, 60M (yes , 60) , 20, and 10 , no other bands. Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB w0...@... wrote: At 09:17 AM 2/21/2010, you wrote: Thank you, Steinar, but there have been serious attempts to dominate the HF bands with wideband modes for what is basically a private system use. Do you think Skip that she will ever get it done? I was told not long ago that they (she) was about to ask the FCC to set aside a small part of the band just for their mode. Of course I passed it off as PURE B-S but would not put it passed her to try it. John, W0JAB Louisiana, Missouri Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [digitalradio]ROS band plan
I'm a bit of a rebel. What yard do I play in? Confused, I guess ROS can be found @ 3.600, 7.053, 18.105 or 18.110, 14.080 or 14.101, es 28.300? So guy's/gal's, we fish'n or cutt'n bait? rgrds Craig kq6i -Original Message- From: F.R. Ashley [mailto:gda...@clearwire.net] Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 2:31 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Rethinking digital mode band plans-developing asolution I totally agree Phil, I get micro-mangaged enough at work. 73 Buddy WB4M - Original Message - From: phil williams ka1...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA? Letter to FCC
Excellent idea to ask FCC for an opinion. Dave K3DCW referred to Part 97, but the section he quoted really only describes emission mode designation codes for SS, and does not technically describe how FCC defines SS. It's almost as if Part 97 assumes the definition is so well known that it's not necessary to define it. Problem is, for many years, SS really did operate over a very large bandwidth, much wider than 2.5 kHz. It was thought use of that form of SS had the potential of interfering with many narrowband users. That was not necessarly true, of course. But now we are seeing modes that are much narrower band. I would be good if FCC responds to your letter with their technical description of SS. It's possible they will say that if you modulate tones within 500 hz using frequency hopping SS techniques, then that is SS. It's also possible they would agree that a transmission less than 2.5 kHz wide does not qualify as SS, even though the modulation technique use SS methods. But right now, I think that since Part 97 does not appear to define what SS is, it is not possible to definitively say whether ROS is legal or not legal in FCC jurisdictions. Asking FCC for an opinion is a great idea. Jim - K6JM This is from Dave K3DCW's comment: The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3 Definitions, Para C, line 8: (8) SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. - Original Message - From: Andy obrien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 7:41 AM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA? Letter to FCC I have compiled a letter to Laura Smith Esq, at the FCC, with details of this mode. I will let you all know when I receive a reply. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies
At 09:51 AM 2/21/2010, you wrote: Actually John, I am beginning to think that there could be merit in protecting some frequencies for certain use . Maybe the PACTOR, WINMOR, PACKET, ALE, PSKMAIL, unattended stations SHOULD get a small slice of spectrum. And for the attended stations?
Re: [digitalradio]ROS band plan
k...@arrl.net wrote: I'm a bit of a rebel. What yard do I play in? Confused, I guess ROS can be found @ 3.600, 7.053, 18.105 or 18.110, 14.080 or 14.101, es 28.300? So guy's/gal's, we fish'n or cutt'n bait? I guess that, when there's only a few people using a mode, it's useful to have a guide to where they might be. Obviously, if the frequency is already in use by someone else, or there's too much noise on a particular frequency, then people will move a way off. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 09:51 AM 2/21/2010, you wrote: Actually John, I am beginning to think that there could be merit in protecting some frequencies for certain use . Maybe the PACTOR, WINMOR, PACKET, ALE, PSKMAIL, unattended stations SHOULD get a small slice of spectrum. And for the attended stations? Given the 2.7kHz definition, attended stations would use the same area. I think the band plans only mention 'unattended' to indicate where 'unattended' stations, if allowed, would be found. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
I agree, Steinar. The principle we all must follow on amateur frequencies is that they are SHARED frequencies, which means used on a first-come-first server basis and anyone accidentally transmitting on an ongoing QSO must also be capable of moving when asked, as well as being able to check if the frequency is clear. Some will say that DX pileups or contesters also do not share, but at the moment of transmission, the frequency may appear to be clear. The interference is due to severe overcrowding, and not intentionally trying to dominate a frequency. This is much different from transmitting without any attempt to check at all. Winmor, Winlink, and ALE all violate that time-honored principle, and so did Propnet until they moved off the normal QSO frequencies. Our FCC has set aside a set of frequencies on several bands for stations that are automatically controlled to accomodate stations that do not listen first, so those stations have no justifiable excuse to complain about interference amongst themselves. They are lucky to have any place at all to operate, and that space is far greater, in proportion to their representation in the total ham population wishing to use the bands, than would normally be allocated. Just because one group thinks THEIR traffic is more important than other traffic does not give them a right to dominate or claim exclusive or primary use of any frequency. This is a primarily HOBBY, and not a service to others, and it is only on that basis that we are permitted to keep the frequencies we have. In a true emergency, ALL frequencies are available to emergency operators and all others MUST give way, so even claiming to be essential for emergencies does not convey any right of ownership of any of our shared frequencies. To answer your question specifically, Winmor, if over 500 Hz wide, is only allowed to operate in those automatic subbands. They are also required to check that the frequency is clear before transmitting, even in the automatic subbands, but that is not enforced because it is basically unenforceable. You can see the result there - stations regularly trample each other because there no practical means of enforcing that they do not. Without rules, just imagine what the bands would be like if powerful or special interest stations that do not listen first were spread all over the bands. That almost happened a few years ago until the FCC refused to implement the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition. Unless we insist on maintaining and supporting the shared nature of our bands, special interest groups that do not share will take over the bands and others will have no place in which to operate for QSO's, experimenting, contesting, DX chasing, etc., One problem with traditional spread spectrum is that it is designed to be hard to monitor, which therefore means hard to police, either by ourselves, or by government agencies. However, since ROS can be monitored by third parties, we hope that the FCC will amend the regulations to permit ROS to be used on HF, but until that is done, we in this country have no choice but to abide by the current regulations, even though they may seem to be unfair. Without any overall supervision, there will be anarchy, and with arnarchy, chaos will soon follow. Rules help to prevent arnarchy and chaos, and are not 100% effective, but are better than nothing. 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Skip But why is a mode like WINMOR allowed in US? I know it is not SS , but you can't monitor the traffic. If I have not totally misunderstood, that is one of the criteria for using a digi mode on the band. Just a thought , but it seems that some part of the FCC rules are more important to follow than others. 73 la5vna Steinar On 21.02.2010 16:17, KH6TY wrote: Thank you, Steinar, but there have been serious attempts to dominate the HF bands with wideband modes for what is basically a private system use, and the FCC acted to protect the bands from that abuse, so while it is sad for us right now, what the FCC has done in the past has protected all hams worldwide from such abuses, even if you do not realize it. I do think ROS should be allowed, but until fully reviewed by the FCC, their are correct in not allowing ROS to be used except on an experimental basis. Believe me, there are much more dangerous fish in the sea! 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: I feel really pity for you , my American HAM friends 73 de la5vna Steinar On 21.02.2010 14:23, Dave Wright wrote: I'm with you, Skip. While I appreciate the effort Jose put into this mode, I won't be using it on HF. The article quoted as justification of the legality of ROS was written by the Italian developer of Chip64 who is not under the jurisdiction of the FCC. The ARRL lists it only as a technical reference to the mode. Since the ARRL is NOT the
Re: [digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies
Actually Andy What we are using right now are a few WinLink frequencies. Why you ask? because every time we set camp anyplace someone will copy the CW ID and them the hate email starts. Not to mention the fact that AEL ran off a large bunch of people that had been using everything from RTTY to PACKET. Bottom line is there are very few places that we can park and still have somewhat of a world wide network. I for one don't like the protected idea at all. Since we *must* stay in a very small part of the band as it is already. But that's not stopping other from coming in and trashing us. This anti pactor thing can work both ways. Many many times I have sat back watching 2 pactor stations going at it. Having a nice QSO just to see them getting QRM'ed. I think the main reason is because most can't copy pactor with their sound card. I really don't care what their problem is. But I'll tell you this right off, when we are having a nice QSO or dropping a note to someone and some LID yeah I said LID jumps right in on top of it the only thing that happens is that the system will try harder and harder to keep the link going. And when it switches to P3 it get's wider and wider. I have a friend that lives about 2 miles away. He is a no-coder. Every time he stops by and I'm in a CW QSO he get all glassy eyed about it and always ask what is being talked about. I wonder if the non-pactor guys do the same. -or- is there *really* a reason some just love to trash every pactor or Amtor QSO they run across. Remember guys, not every pactor signal on the air is a robot station. It could very well be Tony and I having a nice QSO. John, W0JAB -snow is melting-
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS
The attachments are a good illustration why the rules should be changed. Olivia and ROS use a similar amount of spectrum so the FCC shouldn't be calling one legal and the other illegal based on how they were generated. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 08:20 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS [2 Attachments] [Attachment(s) from Tony included below] All, It would appear that ROS-16 is not much different than say Olivia 128 / 2K. The number of tones may differ, but they both use MFSK modulation with sequential tones running at 16 baud. The question is how can ROS be considered a SS frequency hoping mode while Olivia and it's derivatives are not? A closer look shows that they are quite similar (see attached). Tony -K2MO
[digitalradio] ARRL,ROS,FCC
The ARRL is not the one that establish the rules and regulations that is true, by the way is the only argument that can be verified. The ARRL is an organization that obey the laws established by the FCC they will not pronounce in favor of an Ilegal mode. So I bring you an article about SS, and no one has based his opinion on real fact. where is the Part 97 that clearly stated that amateur radio can not use SS. I have only see BLA BLA BLA I think this I think that. Saludos Jose Alberto, Te felicito por este nuevo modo digital, No le hagas mucho caso a estos Señores del Norte ya que si no esta echo en US le ponen muchos obstaculos, este modo llego para quedarse, estamos en el siglo 21, Nuestro hobbie cada dia se ve mas mermado ya que los jovenes con tanto internet I phone etc se pueden comunicar sin tener que pasar un examen.. Tenemos que brindarle algo a estos jovenes que capture su atencion y creo que en los modos digitales y satelites esta el futuro de nuestro hobbie. Adelante Jose Alberto 73 KP4CB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Illegal immigration is also not allowed, but our government supports it. So have fun with ROS. Bob, AA8X - Original Message - From: Dave To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA? Jose (and all), My two-cents worth: Olivia is MFSK (or AMFSK), ROS is Spread Spectrum. MFSK is legal on HF, SS is not. It isn't about bandwidth or any of the other arguments. Since ROS is Spread Spectrum then it is not allowed on HF in areas regulated by the FCC under the current rules. Skip is correct here and Andy is right to be concerned. Dave K3DCW Dave Real radio bounces off the sky On 19 Feb, at 4:47 PM, KH6TY wrote: Jose, We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision, but our FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are valid. Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal.
Re: [digitalradio]ROS band plan
I will be transmiting in 14.101 20M have good propagation from early morning to the afternoon, KP4CB --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@... wrote: k...@... wrote: I'm a bit of a rebel. What yard do I play in? Confused, I guess ROS can be found @ 3.600, 7.053, 18.105 or 18.110, 14.080 or 14.101, es 28.300? So guy's/gal's, we fish'n or cutt'n bait? I guess that, when there's only a few people using a mode, it's useful to have a guide to where they might be. Obviously, if the frequency is already in use by someone else, or there's too much noise on a particular frequency, then people will move a way off. Dave (G0DJA)
RE: [digitalradio] Protected HF frequencies
I too do have PACTOR and AMTOR qso's on occasion as well, only time I do use the mode, not into the pactor mailbox thing too much yet.. Might be me as well. Fred CIW649/VE3FAL CFARS Member SATERN Member SATERN Amateur Radio Liaison Officer DEC Amethyst District ARES Remember guys, not every pactor signal on the air is a robot station. It could very well be Tony and I having a nice QSO. John, W0JAB -snow is melting- Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL,ROS,FCC
§97.305 Authorized emission types. 73 - Skip KH6TY kp4cb wrote: The ARRL is not the one that establish the rules and regulations that is true, by the way is the only argument that can be verified. The ARRL is an organization that obey the laws established by the FCC they will not pronounce in favor of an Ilegal mode. So I bring you an article about SS, and no one has based his opinion on real fact. where is the Part 97 that clearly stated that amateur radio can not use SS. I have only see BLA BLA BLA I think this I think that. Saludos Jose Alberto, Te felicito por este nuevo modo digital, No le hagas mucho caso a estos Señores del Norte ya que si no esta echo en US le ponen muchos obstaculos, este modo llego para quedarse, estamos en el siglo 21, Nuestro hobbie cada dia se ve mas mermado ya que los jovenes con tanto internet I phone etc se pueden comunicar sin tener que pasar un examen.. Tenemos que brindarle algo a estos jovenes que capture su atencion y creo que en los modos digitales y satelites esta el futuro de nuestro hobbie. Adelante Jose Alberto 73 KP4CB
[digitalradio] USA digital bandplan chart
http://www.obriensweb.com/bandmap.html A quick and dirty chart. Comments welcome.
RE: [digitalradio]ROS band plan
I tried the latest download but it would lock up and freeze.. Removed it from the computer. Sure are a lot of digital modes hitting the air today, in some ways way too many Fred CIW649/VE3FAL CFARS Member SATERN Member SATERN Amateur Radio Liaison Officer DEC Amethyst District ARES I will be transmiting in 14.101 20M have good propagation from early morning to the afternoon, KP4CB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Hi Skip Thanks for your answer . I do not disagree with you , but I do not think you need an extremely hard regime to prevent anarchy. You wrote One problem with traditional spread spectrum is that it is designed to be hard to monitor, which therefore means hard to police, What about the lack of capability to monitor the winmor mode ? 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 21.02.2010 19:30, KH6TY wrote: I agree, Steinar. The principle we all must follow on amateur frequencies is that they are SHARED frequencies, which means used on a first-come-first server basis and anyone accidentally transmitting on an ongoing QSO must also be capable of moving when asked, as well as being able to check if the frequency is clear. Some will say that DX pileups or contesters also do not share, but at the moment of transmission, the frequency may appear to be clear. The interference is due to severe overcrowding, and not intentionally trying to dominate a frequency. This is much different from transmitting without any attempt to check at all. Winmor, Winlink, and ALE all violate that time-honored principle, and so did Propnet until they moved off the normal QSO frequencies. Our FCC has set aside a set of frequencies on several bands for stations that are automatically controlled to accomodate stations that do not listen first, so those stations have no justifiable excuse to complain about interference amongst themselves. They are lucky to have any place at all to operate, and that space is far greater, in proportion to their representation in the total ham population wishing to use the bands, than would normally be allocated. Just because one group thinks THEIR traffic is more important than other traffic does not give them a right to dominate or claim exclusive or primary use of any frequency. This is a primarily HOBBY, and not a service to others, and it is only on that basis that we are permitted to keep the frequencies we have. In a true emergency, ALL frequencies are available to emergency operators and all others MUST give way, so even claiming to be essential for emergencies does not convey any right of ownership of any of our shared frequencies. To answer your question specifically, Winmor, if over 500 Hz wide, is only allowed to operate in those automatic subbands. They are also required to check that the frequency is clear before transmitting, even in the automatic subbands, but that is not enforced because it is basically unenforceable. You can see the result there - stations regularly trample each other because there no practical means of enforcing that they do not. Without rules, just imagine what the bands would be like if powerful or special interest stations that do not listen first were spread all over the bands. That almost happened a few years ago until the FCC refused to implement the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition. Unless we insist on maintaining and supporting the shared nature of our bands, special interest groups that do not share will take over the bands and others will have no place in which to operate for QSO's, experimenting, contesting, DX chasing, etc., One problem with traditional spread spectrum is that it is designed to be hard to monitor, which therefore means hard to police, either by ourselves, or by government agencies. However, since ROS can be monitored by third parties, we hope that the FCC will amend the regulations to permit ROS to be used on HF, but until that is done, we in this country have no choice but to abide by the current regulations, even though they may seem to be unfair. Without any overall supervision, there will be anarchy, and with arnarchy, chaos will soon follow. Rules help to prevent arnarchy and chaos, and are not 100% effective, but are better than nothing. 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Skip But why is a mode like WINMOR allowed in US? I know it is not SS , but you can't monitor the traffic. If I have not totally misunderstood, that is one of the criteria for using a digi mode on the band. Just a thought , but it seems that some part of the FCC rules are more important to follow than others. 73 la5vna Steinar On 21.02.2010 16:17, KH6TY wrote: Thank you, Steinar, but there have been serious attempts to dominate the HF bands with wideband modes for what is basically a private system use, and the FCC acted to protect the bands from that abuse, so while it is sad for us right now, what the FCC has done in the past has protected all hams worldwide from such abuses, even if you do not realize it. I do think ROS should be allowed, but until fully reviewed by the FCC, their are correct in not allowing ROS to be used except on an experimental basis. Believe me, there are much more dangerous fish in the sea! 73 - Skip KH6TY Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS - make it legal in USA
The documentation states the data symbols modulates a carrier whose frequency is psuedorandomly determined and ROS modulation scheme can be thought of as a two-step process - data modulation and frequency hopping moduation. Unfortunately, the FCC rules care about the modulation scheme rather than the bandwidth. The FCC regulations are all about labelling things. They should be modified to regulate by bandwidth but that will never happen if people ignore the law instead of petitioning to change it. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: n9dsj To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 04:25 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS - make it legal in USA Is it? Look at the published technical specs and explain how it is Spread Spectrum or frequency hopping other than by label. 73, Bill, N9DSJ
[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Please keep comments related to amateur radio. Andy K3UK Owner. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bob John a...@... wrote: Illegal immigration is also not allowed, but our government supports it. So have fun with ROS. Bob, AA8X
Re: [digitalradio] ARRL,ROS,FCC
Ask and you shall receive. So I bring you an article about SS, and no one has based his opinion on real fact. where is the Part 97 that clearly stated that amateur radio can not use SS. This is stated in: §97.305 Authorized emission types, Paragraph (b) which states: (b) A station may transmit a test emission on any frequency authorized to the control operator for brief periods for experimental purposes, except that no pulse modulation emission may be transmitted on any frequency where pulse is not specifically authorized and no SS modulation emission may be transmitted on any frequency where SS is not specifically authorized. SS is specifically authorized on above 222MHz. Since it is NOT specifically authorized below 222MHz, it is unauthorized. For a complete copy of the Part 97, here is the link: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/onepage.html. Dave K3DCW It isn't radio unless it bounces off the sky On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 1:25 PM, kp4cb ath...@prtc.net wrote: So I bring you an article about SS, and no one has based his opinion on real fact. where is the Part 97 that clearly stated that amateur radio can not use SS. --
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to support such operation: (b) Where authorized by §§ 97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of this part, a station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using an unspecified digital code, except to a station in a country with which the United States does not have an agreement permitting the code to be used. RTTY and data emissions using unspecified digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication. When deemed necessary by a District Director to assure compliance with the FCC Rules, a station must: (1) Cease the transmission using the unspecified digital code; (2) Restrict transmissions of any digital code to the extent instructed; (3) Maintain a record, convertible to the original information, of all digital communications transmitted I also do not see anything in the part 97 subsection on spread spectrum ( if in fact ROS was really determined to be an SS mode) that would make ROS non compliant. Part 97 technical standards mostly harmonize US rules with ITU international treaties They are written to be quite broad in order to permit experimentation. So long as the coding technique is public and can be received by anyone, the real restriction is based on allowable bandwidth and power allocated for a given frequency. John B. Stephensen wrote: The attachments are a good illustration why the rules should be changed. Olivia and ROS use a similar amount of spectrum so the FCC shouldn't be calling one legal and the other illegal based on how they were generated. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 08:20 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS [2 Attachments] [Attachment(s) from Tony included below] All, It would appear that ROS-16 is not much different than say Olivia 128 / 2K. The number of tones may differ, but they both use MFSK modulation with sequential tones running at 16 baud. The question is how can ROS be considered a SS frequency hoping mode while Olivia and it's derivatives are not? A closer look shows that they are quite similar (see attached). Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Hi Steinar, The FCC needs to address Winmor also, if we are to continue to keep our shared bands open. However, Winmor is new, and it takes time to move a government body, and complaints must also be filed by those harmed. In the case of spread spectrum, as it pertains to ROS, spread spectrum has already been addressed, but the FCC needs to issue a new opinion, and I hope Andy's letter to the FCC Commissioner will help make that happen. The danger is that ROS has been described as spread spectrum and appears to use frequency hopping as described, so the FCC's initial reaction might be that spread spectrum of any kind (or width) is only permitted at 222 MHz or above (cell phones use the technology too) as stated in the current regulations. It may take a formal petition to the FCC to allow limited spread spectrum of the kind used by ROS to get an amendment to the rules instead of just a clarification which may go against us. We will have to see what happens. Basically, IMHO. no quasi-commercial messaging services should be allowed on the ham bands, as these are true amateur activites. There is plenty of room for those on the Sailmail network without taking away from space needed for amateur hobby activities. With sunspots returning, this will soon become a much bigger problem as our bands get more crowded with more traditional amateur communications, and signals simply propagate farther. 73, Skip You wrote One problem with traditional spread spectrum is that it is designed to be hard to monitor, which therefore means hard to police, What about the lack of capability to monitor the winmor mode ? 73 de LA5VNA Steinar Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html 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/
[digitalradio] Moderator Intervention : Legal debate of ROS
The discussion is now getting circular. Please note that this thread will be closed as of 1200 UTC 22/2/10, unless something more definitive is discovered. Please do not post on this topic after that time/date. Andy K3Uk
[digitalradio] Why ROS?
Why this new mode? Advantages? 73 Alan NV8A
[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Hi Jim, Actually CHIP worked ok, especially on the low bands. The Virginia NTS net used this and still may. I think the issues with CHIP, and perhaps ROS, have more to do with a strict definition of spread spectrum and frequency hopping then the reality of the mode. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jhaynesatalumni jhhay...@... wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh6ty@ wrote: I agree Dave, and Chip64 was abandoned over here on the same basis! I remember trying Chip64 without worrying about whether it was legal. I got the impression it was abandoned just because it didn't work very well compared to some of the other modes that came out about the same time. Jim W6JVE
AW: [digitalradio] Why ROS?
It is new and can be decoded very far UNDER the noise level.. Dg9bfc Sigi _ Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] Im Auftrag von Alan Beagley Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. Februar 2010 20:27 An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Betreff: [digitalradio] Why ROS? Why this new mode? Advantages? 73 Alan NV8A
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
If ROS did not use FHSS then only the rules that you quote would apply. The problem is that the table in 97.305(c) authorizes SS only above 222 MHz. The FCC rules are much more restrictive than ITU treaties. Other countries specify only maximum occupied bandwith in their amateur radio regulations. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: w2xj To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 19:17 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS] I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to support such operation: (b) Where authorized by §§ 97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of this part, a station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using an unspecified digital code, except to a station in a country with which the United States does not have an agreement permitting the code to be used. RTTY and data emissions using unspecified digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication. When deemed necessary by a District Director to assure compliance with the FCC Rules, a station must: (1) Cease the transmission using the unspecified digital code; (2) Restrict transmissions of any digital code to the extent instructed; (3) Maintain a record, convertible to the original information, of all digital communications transmitted I also do not see anything in the part 97 subsection on spread spectrum ( if in fact ROS was really determined to be an SS mode) that would make ROS non compliant. Part 97 technical standards mostly harmonize US rules with ITU international treaties They are written to be quite broad in order to permit experimentation. So long as the coding technique is public and can be received by anyone, the real restriction is based on allowable bandwidth and power allocated for a given frequency. John B. Stephensen wrote: The attachments are a good illustration why the rules should be changed. Olivia and ROS use a similar amount of spectrum so the FCC shouldn't be calling one legal and the other illegal based on how they were generated.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?]
Skip, please see my other post on this topic. It is not that ROS on HF is illegal it is just not specifically listed in the rules as are older systems. There is a general catch all section that permits new modes provided they adhere to general guidelines concerning bandwidth and encryption. Steinar, while not specifically a part of FCC rules, spread spectrum by gentleman's agreement uses only a few known spreading algorithms so it is easy to cycle through them and decrypt the transmission. There are other ways to make the signal receivable and so long as the FCC can find a means to listen in, you are fine. Otherwise you can be ordered off the air. Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Skip Thanks for your answer . I do not disagree with you , but I do not think you need an extremely hard regime to prevent anarchy. You wrote One problem with traditional spread spectrum is that it is designed to be hard to monitor, which therefore means hard to police, What about the lack of capability to monitor the winmor mode ? 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 21.02.2010 19:30, KH6TY wrote: I agree, Steinar. The principle we all must follow on amateur frequencies is that they are SHARED frequencies, which means used on a first-come-first server basis and anyone accidentally transmitting on an ongoing QSO must also be capable of moving when asked, as well as being able to check if the frequency is clear. Some will say that DX pileups or contesters also do not share, but at the moment of transmission, the frequency may appear to be clear. The interference is due to severe overcrowding, and not intentionally trying to dominate a frequency. This is much different from transmitting without any attempt to check at all. Winmor, Winlink, and ALE all violate that time-honored principle, and so did Propnet until they moved off the normal QSO frequencies. Our FCC has set aside a set of frequencies on several bands for stations that are automatically controlled to accomodate stations that do not listen first, so those stations have no justifiable excuse to complain about interference amongst themselves. They are lucky to have any place at all to operate, and that space is far greater, in proportion to their representation in the total ham population wishing to use the bands, than would normally be allocated. Just because one group thinks THEIR traffic is more important than other traffic does not give them a right to dominate or claim exclusive or primary use of any frequency. This is a primarily HOBBY, and not a service to others, and it is only on that basis that we are permitted to keep the frequencies we have. In a true emergency, ALL frequencies are available to emergency operators and all others MUST give way, so even claiming to be essential for emergencies does not convey any right of ownership of any of our shared frequencies. To answer your question specifically, Winmor, if over 500 Hz wide, is only allowed to operate in those automatic subbands. They are also required to check that the frequency is clear before transmitting, even in the automatic subbands, but that is not enforced because it is basically unenforceable. You can see the result there - stations regularly trample each other because there no practical means of enforcing that they do not. Without rules, just imagine what the bands would be like if powerful or special interest stations that do not listen first were spread all over the bands. That almost happened a few years ago until the FCC refused to implement the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition. Unless we insist on maintaining and supporting the shared nature of our bands, special interest groups that do not share will take over the bands and others will have no place in which to operate for QSO's, experimenting, contesting, DX chasing, etc., One problem with traditional spread spectrum is that it is designed to be hard to monitor, which therefore means hard to police, either by ourselves, or by government agencies. However, since ROS can be monitored by third parties, we hope that the FCC will amend the regulations to permit ROS to be used on HF, but until that is done, we in this country have no choice but to abide by the current regulations, even though they may seem to be unfair. Without any overall supervision, there will be anarchy, and with arnarchy, chaos will soon follow. Rules help to prevent arnarchy and chaos, and are not 100% effective, but are better than nothing. 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Skip But why is a mode like WINMOR allowed in US? I know it is not SS , but you can't monitor the traffic. If I have not totally misunderstood, that is one of the criteria for using a digi mode on the band. Just a thought , but it seems that some part of the FCC rules are more important to follow than others. 73 la5vna Steinar On 21.02.2010 16:17, KH6TY wrote: Thank
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA digital bandplan chart
Correct, it IS the FCC's plan but with the concepts of Regions 1's plan squeezed in. . the suggestion is that we digital mode freaks use narrow mode at the low end of the band segment, leave the weak signal folks alone, keep wider variants like Olivia and ROS16 for the upper segments, and keep unattended modes at the upper end, where possible. On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 2:16 PM, wd4kpd wd4...@suddenlink.net wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: http://www.obriensweb.com/bandmap.html A quick and dirty chart. Comments welcome. well Andy, quick and dirty this is almost the way the FCC has dictated it. of course following it in the wide mode sections will by the laws of physics and other human reasoning cause qrm to somebody. so lets all get a life and accept it. david/wd4kpd
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
In most legal documents, specific references override general ones. In this discussion, only the FCC attorneys can decide what is allowed and what is not. Until then, the specific regulations regarding SS are assumed to be the law in this country, no matter how badly it is desired to use the new mode, and what rationalizations are made for being able to use it. This road has been traveled before! 73 - Skip KH6TY w2xj wrote: I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to support such operation: (b) Where authorized by §§ 97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of this part, a station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using an unspecified digital code, except to a station in a country with which the United States does not have an agreement permitting the code to be used. RTTY and data emissions using unspecified digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication. When deemed necessary by a District Director to assure compliance with the FCC Rules, a station must: (1) Cease the transmission using the unspecified digital code; (2) Restrict transmissions of any digital code to the extent instructed; (3) Maintain a record, convertible to the original information, of all digital communications transmitted I also do not see anything in the part 97 subsection on spread spectrum ( if in fact ROS was really determined to be an SS mode) that would make ROS non compliant. Part 97 technical standards mostly harmonize US rules with ITU international treaties They are written to be quite broad in order to permit experimentation. So long as the coding technique is public and can be received by anyone, the real restriction is based on allowable bandwidth and power allocated for a given frequency. John B. Stephensen wrote: The attachments are a good illustration why the rules should be changed. Olivia and ROS use a similar amount of spectrum so the FCC shouldn't be calling one legal and the other illegal based on how they were generated. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 08:20 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS [2 Attachments] [Attachment(s) from Tony included below] All, It would appear that ROS-16 is not much different than say Olivia 128 / 2K. The number of tones may differ, but they both use MFSK modulation with sequential tones running at 16 baud. The question is how can ROS be considered a SS frequency hoping mode while Olivia and it's derivatives are not? A closer look shows that they are quite similar (see attached). Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Why ROS?
Good question Alan. It does seem quite robust but does not seem to add anything that Olivia or some levels of Thor. Too early to say for sure. Andy K3UK On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@yahoo.com wrote: Why this new mode? Advantages? 73 Alan NV8A
Re: [digitalradio] Why ROS?
I think of this like playing around with hardware circuits to see what you can do. Jose had an idea, wrote some software and we have something to experiment with. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Randy K7AGE
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA digital bandplan chart
David, Would you like to try a QSO on 432.090 using ROS 16 baud (or even 1 baud)? We are 250 miles apart, but every morning I can QSO in SSB phone with Charlotte, NC, stations on 432.095 at 200 miles even when there is no propagation enhancement, and with a Georgia, station at 225 miles. We are also currently testing Olivia 16-500 on SSB on that band with good success. I am retired and available most of the time, so just email me for a sked if you like. My grid is FM02bt. If necessary, we could start with CW, but if the -35 dB minimum S/N of ROS is correct, we should at least be able to make it at one baud if we coordinate frequencies closely. There is no question about the legality of using ROS on 432 MHz. 73 - Skip KH6TY kh...@comcast.net http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net/~kh6ty/ wd4kpd wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: http://www.obriensweb.com/bandmap.html http://www.obriensweb.com/bandmap.html A quick and dirty chart. Comments welcome. well Andy, quick and dirty this is almost the way the FCC has dictated it. of course following it in the wide mode sections will by the laws of physics and other human reasoning cause qrm to somebody. so lets all get a life and accept it. david/wd4kpd
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
Please provide a citation from part 97 that prohibits ROS even if it were deemed to truly be spread spectrum. KH6TY wrote: In most legal documents, specific references override general ones. In this discussion, only the FCC attorneys can decide what is allowed and what is not. Until then, the specific regulations regarding SS are assumed to be the law in this country, no matter how badly it is desired to use the new mode, and what rationalizations are made for being able to use it. This road has been traveled before! 73 - Skip KH6TY w2xj wrote: I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to support such operation: (b) Where authorized by §§ 97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of this part, a station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using an unspecified digital code, except to a station in a country with which the United States does not have an agreement permitting the code to be used. RTTY and data emissions using unspecified digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication. When deemed necessary by a District Director to assure compliance with the FCC Rules, a station must: (1) Cease the transmission using the unspecified digital code; (2) Restrict transmissions of any digital code to the extent instructed; (3) Maintain a record, convertible to the original information, of all digital communications transmitted I also do not see anything in the part 97 subsection on spread spectrum ( if in fact ROS was really determined to be an SS mode) that would make ROS non compliant. Part 97 technical standards mostly harmonize US rules with ITU international treaties They are written to be quite broad in order to permit experimentation. So long as the coding technique is public and can be received by anyone, the real restriction is based on allowable bandwidth and power allocated for a given frequency. John B. Stephensen wrote: The attachments are a good illustration why the rules should be changed. Olivia and ROS use a similar amount of spectrum so the FCC shouldn't be calling one legal and the other illegal based on how they were generated. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 08:20 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS [2 Attachments] [Attachment(s) from Tony included below] All, It would appear that ROS-16 is not much different than say Olivia 128 / 2K. The number of tones may differ, but they both use MFSK modulation with sequential tones running at 16 baud. The question is how can ROS be considered a SS frequency hoping mode while Olivia and it's derivatives are not? A closer look shows that they are quite similar (see attached). Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
§97.305 Authorized emission types is the regulation that authorizes SS for 222 Mhz and above only. 73 - Skip KH6TY w2xj wrote: Please provide a citation from part 97 that prohibits ROS even if it were deemed to truly be spread spectrum. KH6TY wrote: In most legal documents, specific references override general ones. In this discussion, only the FCC attorneys can decide what is allowed and what is not. Until then, the specific regulations regarding SS are assumed to be the law in this country, no matter how badly it is desired to use the new mode, and what rationalizations are made for being able to use it. This road has been traveled before! 73 - Skip KH6TY w2xj wrote: I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to support such operation: (b) Where authorized by §§ 97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of this part, a station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using an unspecified digital code, except to a station in a country with which the United States does not have an agreement permitting the code to be used. RTTY and data emissions using unspecified digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication. When deemed necessary by a District Director to assure compliance with the FCC Rules, a station must: (1) Cease the transmission using the unspecified digital code; (2) Restrict transmissions of any digital code to the extent instructed; (3) Maintain a record, convertible to the original information, of all digital communications transmitted I also do not see anything in the part 97 subsection on spread spectrum ( if in fact ROS was really determined to be an SS mode) that would make ROS non compliant. Part 97 technical standards mostly harmonize US rules with ITU international treaties They are written to be quite broad in order to permit experimentation. So long as the coding technique is public and can be received by anyone, the real restriction is based on allowable bandwidth and power allocated for a given frequency. John B. Stephensen wrote: The attachments are a good illustration why the rules should be changed. Olivia and ROS use a similar amount of spectrum so the FCC shouldn't be calling one legal and the other illegal based on how they were generated. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 08:20 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS [2 Attachments] [Attachment(s) from Tony included below] All, It would appear that ROS-16 is not much different than say Olivia 128 / 2K. The number of tones may differ, but they both use MFSK modulation with sequential tones running at 16 baud. The question is how can ROS be considered a SS frequency hoping mode while Olivia and it's derivatives are not? A closer look shows that they are quite similar (see attached). Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
On 02/21/2010 02:17 PM, w2xj wrote: Part 97 technical standards mostly harmonize US rules with ITU international treaties They are written to be quite broad in order to permit experimentation. So long as the coding technique is public and can be received by anyone, the real restriction is based on allowable bandwidth and power allocated for a given frequency. Speaking of coding technique, is there a detailed spec of ROS available? Say, one that would allow other developers to implement ROS in their programs. I saw the architecture paper on ROS, but have not found any details on what coding is used under the hood, what the pseudo-random sequence is, etc... -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
Ok so what if it is... This is not the first time (nor will it be the last time) that this has happen. My question is where do they all come from? Why would someone take the time to write the program if it can't be used?
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Ok so what if it is... This is not the first time (nor will it be the last time) that this has happen. My question is where do they all come from? Why would someone take the time to write the program if it can't be used? Probably because, in other countries, it isn't illegal and we are quite happily using it. Seeing the following on 80M at 1 Baud. RX: 20:47 UTC 0.5 Hz. IW7DF= DL5SDG JN48KQ OOO STOP RX: 20:51 UTC 1.5 Hz. CQ DL5SDG JN48KQ STOP RX: 20:52 UTC 2.4 Hz. DL5SDG TF3HZ HP94AD OOO STOP RX: 20:54 UTC 2.0 Hz. TF3HZ D RX: 20:55 UTC -25.4 Hz. CQ DF2JP JO31JG STOP RX: 20:57 UTC 2.4 Hz. DL5SDG TF3HZ HP94AD OOO 73 STOP Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
On 02/21/2010 02:17 PM, w2xj wrote: I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to support such operation: Lets look at it in another way. Part 97.3 is quite specific about what modes are considered spread spectrum: (8) SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. ROS has no ITU designator marking it as spread spectrum. Furthermore, from part 97.307 places this limitation on any data mode transmitted in the HF bands: (2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission. ROS follows this rule. In short, ROS has not been ruled to be a spread spectrum mode by the FCC or the ITU, and fits within the bandwidth of a phone communications signal on HF. It also follows the common sense rule of not causing any harm on the HF bands. It really is not much different from the other data modulations out there. JT65, Throb and RTTY also have empty space between carrier positions. I would certainly try out ROS, if it weren't for the fact that I don't have a Windows PC and ROS does not seem to run anywhere else... -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
That is part of the story but SS in that context is specifically defined in 97.3. KH6TY wrote: §97.305 Authorized emission types is the regulation that authorizes SS for 222 Mhz and above only. 73 - Skip KH6TY w2xj wrote: Please provide a citation from part 97 that prohibits ROS even if it were deemed to truly be spread spectrum. KH6TY wrote: In most legal documents, specific references override general ones. In this discussion, only the FCC attorneys can decide what is allowed and what is not. Until then, the specific regulations regarding SS are assumed to be the law in this country, no matter how badly it is desired to use the new mode, and what rationalizations are made for being able to use it. This road has been traveled before! 73 - Skip KH6TY w2xj wrote: I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to support such operation: (b) Where authorized by §§ 97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of this part, a station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using an unspecified digital code, except to a station in a country with which the United States does not have an agreement permitting the code to be used. RTTY and data emissions using unspecified digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication. When deemed necessary by a District Director to assure compliance with the FCC Rules, a station must: (1) Cease the transmission using the unspecified digital code; (2) Restrict transmissions of any digital code to the extent instructed; (3) Maintain a record, convertible to the original information, of all digital communications transmitted I also do not see anything in the part 97 subsection on spread spectrum ( if in fact ROS was really determined to be an SS mode) that would make ROS non compliant. Part 97 technical standards mostly harmonize US rules with ITU international treaties They are written to be quite broad in order to permit experimentation. So long as the coding technique is public and can be received by anyone, the real restriction is based on allowable bandwidth and power allocated for a given frequency. John B. Stephensen wrote: The attachments are a good illustration why the rules should be changed. Olivia and ROS use a similar amount of spectrum so the FCC shouldn't be calling one legal and the other illegal based on how they were generated. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 08:20 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS [2 Attachments] [Attachment(s) from Tony included below] All, It would appear that ROS-16 is not much different than say Olivia 128 / 2K. The number of tones may differ, but they both use MFSK modulation with sequential tones running at 16 baud. The question is how can ROS be considered a SS frequency hoping mode while Olivia and it's derivatives are not? A closer look shows that they are quite similar (see attached). Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
Rik, Did you see the recent post by K3DCW? The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3 Definitions, Para C, line 8: /(8) SS/. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. ROS uses SSB so the first designator is J (this meets the definition) and it uses bandwidth-expansion. (this meets that definition as well) Thus, taking this definition literally, it is indeed Spread Spectrum and is thus illegal below 222MHzat least that the conservative interpretation that I'll stick with until we get a ruling otherwise. Dave K3DCW Obviously, with such a new mode, there has been no ITU description of ROS. If it used bandwidth expansion (i.e. frequency hopping), it is obviously to be classified as spread spectrum. Whether or not modes like MT63 and Olivia are essentially the same is debatable. The problem seems to be the direct reference to bandwidth expansion (but within the width of a phone signal), which, until ruled otherwise (and I hope it will be) is spread spectrum according to the current FCC rules, and is currently legal only above 222 Mhz. 73 - Skip KH6TY Rik van Riel wrote: On 02/21/2010 02:17 PM, w2xj wrote: I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to support such operation: Lets look at it in another way. Part 97.3 is quite specific about what modes are considered spread spectrum: (8) SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. ROS has no ITU designator marking it as spread spectrum. Furthermore, from part 97.307 places this limitation on any data mode transmitted in the HF bands: (2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission. ROS follows this rule. In short, ROS has not been ruled to be a spread spectrum mode by the FCC or the ITU, and fits within the bandwidth of a phone communications signal on HF. It also follows the common sense rule of not causing any harm on the HF bands. It really is not much different from the other data modulations out there. JT65, Throb and RTTY also have empty space between carrier positions. I would certainly try out ROS, if it weren't for the fact that I don't have a Windows PC and ROS does not seem to run anywhere else... -- All rights reversed.
[digitalradio] Re: ROS - make it legal in USA
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John B. Stephensen kd6...@... wrote: What ROS users should do is email their ARRL representative and have them petition the FCC to change the rules. One solution is to eliminate the emission designators and change the RTTY/data segment of each HF band to 0-500 Hz wide emissions and the phone/image of each HF band to 0-8 kHz wide emissions with 0-20 kHz above 29 MHz. Well, most hams inaccurately believe, as a simplification, that the rule is emission designators ending in A/B go at the bottom of the band, ending in E goes at the top of the band, and ending in D wiggle in between. However, the whole point of the ROS debate is that FCC 97.3(c) does exist, like it or not, and FCC 97.3(c) was way over complicated and is simply obsolete. The FCC is not going to wipe FCC 2.201 because hams don't like emissions designators. A simpler solution than yours, would be to wipe 97.3(c) and replace it with something along the lines of ordering our transmissions based on alphabetical order of the letter at the end of our emissions designators., and then toss something in about 97.101(a) implying that maximizing the amount of cooperation with as many as possible of the thousands of band plans would be defined as good engineering practice. Which would pretty much end up as the status quo, with the added feature of eliminating all future RF engineer lawyer-ing. 73 de Vince N9NFB
[digitalradio] ROS ability to deal with ALE QRM?
Anyone been able to test ROS 16 with QRM present ? It would be interesting to use it on common ALE frequencies and see how it does when a brief ALE sounding occurs. The description suggests that is should be able to cope with the brief QRM. Andy
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]]
There are two very common misconceptions in that theory. The first is that SS is unto itself not always a fully digital mode. and A, F, or J in that case indicates the nature of the narrow band signal being spread. So SS with a J designator would be an SSB signal digitally spread by the PN code. When received, it is de-spread to an analog SSB signal. Sound card modes are not necessarily SSB. We use the SSB process as a convenient easy to deploy up converter when operating in these modes, the modulation occurs in the computer code and could be transmitted with varying degrees of ease by other means. CW via sound card is still CW as is the case with RTTY. ROS is no exception. It is quite possible to drive a DDS chip on frequency and accomplish the exact same result only at the expense of greater complexity. KH6TY wrote: Rik, Did you see the recent post by K3DCW? The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3 Definitions, Para C, line 8: /(8) SS/. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. ROS uses SSB so the first designator is J (this meets the definition) and it uses bandwidth-expansion. (this meets that definition as well) Thus, taking this definition literally, it is indeed Spread Spectrum and is thus illegal below 222MHzat least that the conservative interpretation that I'll stick with until we get a ruling otherwise. Dave K3DCW Obviously, with such a new mode, there has been no ITU description of ROS. If it used bandwidth expansion (i.e. frequency hopping), it is obviously to be classified as spread spectrum. Whether or not modes like MT63 and Olivia are essentially the same is debatable. The problem seems to be the direct reference to bandwidth expansion (but within the width of a phone signal), which, until ruled otherwise (and I hope it will be) is spread spectrum according to the current FCC rules, and is currently legal only above 222 Mhz. 73 - Skip KH6TY Rik van Riel wrote: On 02/21/2010 02:17 PM, w2xj wrote: I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to support such operation: Lets look at it in another way. Part 97.3 is quite specific about what modes are considered spread spectrum: (8) SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. ROS has no ITU designator marking it as spread spectrum. Furthermore, from part 97.307 places this limitation on any data mode transmitted in the HF bands: (2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission. ROS follows this rule. In short, ROS has not been ruled to be a spread spectrum mode by the FCC or the ITU, and fits within the bandwidth of a phone communications signal on HF. It also follows the common sense rule of not causing any harm on the HF bands. It really is not much different from the other data modulations out there. JT65, Throb and RTTY also have empty space between carrier positions. I would certainly try out ROS, if it weren't for the fact that I don't have a Windows PC and ROS does not seem to run anywhere else... -- All rights reversed.
[digitalradio] No HF data/text bandwidth limit in USA Re: A closer look at ROS
Dear Rik van Riel, There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on HF data/text emission in USA ham bands, except for the sub-band and band edges. FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on content of the digital emission, not bandwidth. FCC rules allow hams to transmit a 149kHz bandwidth data/text signal on the 20 meter band. It may not be popular to do so, but it is legal :) The amateur radio regulations of many other countries of the world do not have bandwidth limits on signals. Bandwidth regulation has been recently adopted by some countries. New SDR radios have the potential to transmit and receive wider bandwidths. Perhaps we will see more development in this area of technology in the future. There are other HF services using 24kHz and 48kHz bandwidth fast data modems. Some of these modems are capable of sending a page of text in the time it would take you to call CQ on one of the slow digital modes. Perhaps there are good applications for 48kHz modems in HF ham radio. For example, large portions of the 24MHz, 21MHz, and 28MHz ham bands are almost completely empty of amateur radio signals for years. It would be easy to fit a 24kHz or 48kHz bandwidth signal in these bands. Rik, you recently wrote that FCC part §97.307 places [bandwidth] limitation on any data mode transmitted in the HF bands Please check your copy of the FCC rules more closely, because you overlooked what the rule actually says: (f) The following standards and limitations apply to transmissions on the frequencies specified in §97.305(c) of this Part. §97.305(c) is a chart of amateur radio bands and sub-bands. Each sub-band has a note, and the notes are listed in part §97.307. The Note # (2) only applies a soft bandwidth limit to non-phone emissions within the Phone,image sub-bands. Note # (2) does not apply to the CW/data/RTTY sub-bands. Several years ago, there was a proposal to FCC to provide regulation by bandwidth rather than content. However, it failed to be adopted. Thus, USA hams still don't have a bandwidth limit for HF data/text :) Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA Rik van Riel r...@... wrote: Furthermore, from part 97.307 places this limitation on any data mode transmitted in the HF bands: (2)No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission.
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
On 02/21/2010 04:16 PM, KH6TY wrote: Did you see the recent post by K3DCW? The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3 Definitions, Para C, line 8: /(8) SS/. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. ROS uses SSB so the first designator is J (this meets the definition) and it uses bandwidth-expansion. (this meets that definition as well) Thus, taking this definition literally, it is indeed Spread Spectrum and is thus illegal below 222MHzat least that the conservative interpretation that I'll stick with until we get a ruling otherwise. http://life.itu.ch/radioclub/rr/ap01.htm If you look at the list there, it would appear that ROS is J2D (under the SSB interpretation) or V2D. Not AXX CXX DXX FXX GXX HXX JXX or RXX. You can read the rules as strictly as you want and limit your activities that way, but I believe some common sense questions like does this mode take more bandwidth than other modes? and does this mode cause more interference than already allowed modes? will carry more weight than the choice of a single word in the description of the modulation. Modes that jump around inside an SSB passband according to a pseudo-random number sequence are already legal, and in fairly widespread use, on the HF amateur bands. Modes that send a data stream across multiple sub carriers inside an SSB passband are already legal, and in widespread use, on the HF amateur bands. ROS is not doing anything different. The only thing different is one single word in the creator's description of the modulation. If you want to limit your own activities on the HF bands, feel free to give more importance to that single word than to the technical details of the ROS modulation. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] No HF data/text bandwidth limit in USA Re: A closer look at ROS
On 02/21/2010 04:48 PM, expeditionradio wrote: §97.305(c) is a chart of amateur radio bands and sub-bands. Each sub-band has a note, and the notes are listed in part §97.307. The Note # (2) only applies a soft bandwidth limit to non-phone emissions within the Phone,image sub-bands. Note # (2) does not apply to the CW/data/RTTY sub-bands. Indeed, you are right. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Part 97
On 02/21/2010 02:36 PM, athosj wrote: This is the way that an argument is conducted with real facts. If ROS is a SS can not be used in HF bands. Furthermore, if you believe that ROS is spread spectrum, you should probably also stop using any other modes with the same technical characteristics. This could include Olivia, Domino, JT65, MT63 and ALE, depending on which characteristics you ascribe to ROS :) -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]]
The FCC is only concerned with what happens to the resultant RF energy and what is done with it, not how that RF is generated. In the case of ROS, if the data is applied to an RF carrier and the frequency then hopped, that would classify it as spread spectrum. The rules are FCC rules and currently specifically specify spread spectrum to be used only at 222Mhz and above. If it were not for that specific reference and the statement by Jose that frequency hopping is used, then the rules might be subject to interpretation. As it presently is, Jose would have a tough time in a court of law to prove he does not use frequency hopping or spread spectrum, as he has already claimed. Our best chance to legally use ROS in the US is for the FCC to issue a ruling. As amateurs, and not even lawyers, we are not competent to second-guess the FCC's lawyers and as long as there are so many previous claims that ROS is spread spectrum, we are stuck with that definition. Our best hope is to get the FCC to amend the regulations, or make an exception, to allow spread spectrum as long as it is capable of being monitored by third parties and does not exceed the bandwidth of a phone signal, and ROS would meet all of those conditions. There are those who think that regulation by bandwidth would solve everything, but there are also those who would love that chance to take over the HF bands with automated messaging services so they do not have to worry about crowding anymore. You can be thankful for regulations that both protect, and also allow, with limitations, and that cannot be changed without a sufficient period of public comment from all users so that all sides can be heard from. The FCC adheres to such a process. 73 - Skip KH6TY w2xj wrote: There are two very common misconceptions in that theory. The first is that SS is unto itself not always a fully digital mode. and A, F, or J in that case indicates the nature of the narrow band signal being spread. So SS with a J designator would be an SSB signal digitally spread by the PN code. When received, it is de-spread to an analog SSB signal. Sound card modes are not necessarily SSB. We use the SSB process as a convenient easy to deploy up converter when operating in these modes, the modulation occurs in the computer code and could be transmitted with varying degrees of ease by other means. CW via sound card is still CW as is the case with RTTY. ROS is no exception. It is quite possible to drive a DDS chip on frequency and accomplish the exact same result only at the expense of greater complexity. KH6TY wrote: Rik, Did you see the recent post by K3DCW? The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3 Definitions, Para C, line 8: /(8) SS/. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. ROS uses SSB so the first designator is J (this meets the definition) and it uses bandwidth-expansion. (this meets that definition as well) Thus, taking this definition literally, it is indeed Spread Spectrum and is thus illegal below 222MHzat least that the conservative interpretation that I'll stick with until we get a ruling otherwise. Dave K3DCW Obviously, with such a new mode, there has been no ITU description of ROS. If it used bandwidth expansion (i.e. frequency hopping), it is obviously to be classified as spread spectrum. Whether or not modes like MT63 and Olivia are essentially the same is debatable. The problem seems to be the direct reference to bandwidth expansion (but within the width of a phone signal), which, until ruled otherwise (and I hope it will be) is spread spectrum according to the current FCC rules, and is currently legal only above 222 Mhz. 73 - Skip KH6TY Rik van Riel wrote: On 02/21/2010 02:17 PM, w2xj wrote: I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to support such operation: Lets look at it in another way. Part 97.3 is quite specific about what modes are considered spread spectrum: (8) SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. ROS has no ITU designator marking it as spread spectrum. Furthermore, from part 97.307 places this limitation on any data mode transmitted in the HF bands: (2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a
Re: [digitalradio] ROS, legal in USA? Letter to FCC
On 02/21/2010 11:31 AM, J. Moen wrote: But right now, I think that since Part 97 does not appear to define what SS is, it is not possible to definitively say whether ROS is legal or not legal in FCC jurisdictions. Asking FCC for an opinion is a great idea. Of course, there is always the danger that the FCC might accidentally make currently used modes like Olivia illegal, depending on how the question was phrased :) -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS - make it legal in USA
Not all radio sevices reference 2.201 so changing part 97 wouldn't be a major problem for the FCC. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: vinceinwaukesha To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 21:19 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS - make it legal in USA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John B. Stephensen kd6...@... wrote: What ROS users should do is email their ARRL representative and have them petition the FCC to change the rules. One solution is to eliminate the emission designators and change the RTTY/data segment of each HF band to 0-500 Hz wide emissions and the phone/image of each HF band to 0-8 kHz wide emissions with 0-20 kHz above 29 MHz. Well, most hams inaccurately believe, as a simplification, that the rule is emission designators ending in A/B go at the bottom of the band, ending in E goes at the top of the band, and ending in D wiggle in between. However, the whole point of the ROS debate is that FCC 97.3(c) does exist, like it or not, and FCC 97.3(c) was way over complicated and is simply obsolete. The FCC is not going to wipe FCC 2.201 because hams don't like emissions designators. A simpler solution than yours, would be to wipe 97.3(c) and replace it with something along the lines of ordering our transmissions based on alphabetical order of the letter at the end of our emissions designators., and then toss something in about 97.101(a) implying that maximizing the amount of cooperation with as many as possible of the thousands of band plans would be defined as good engineering practice. Which would pretty much end up as the status quo, with the added feature of eliminating all future RF engineer lawyer-ing. 73 de Vince N9NFB
RE: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]]
AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 6:14 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]] The current restrictions on automatic stations can stay in place with regulation by bandwidth so this shouln't be an impediment. In the ARRL's proposal to regulate by bandwidth (RM-11306), the current restrictions on semi-automatic stations would have been eliminated. This and other aspects of the ARRL's proposal generated a large negative reaction, which resulted in the ARRL retracting its proposal before the FCC acted upon it. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Considerate Operation: CW and JT65A
I've noticed numerous CW QSOs taking place in the vicinity of 14.076 Mhz., where JT65A is usually spoken. Since they apparently have a right to be there, what sort of distance (in Hz.) do they need from a JT65A signal so as not to feel QRMed? It's easy to make sure my signal doesn't overlap theirs on the waterfall, but could that still cause problems? My guess is that if they're using a 250 Hz. filter, so would 125 Hz. be enough of a distance? I'm not a CWer, so that's why I'm asking. -- Dave - AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]]
ROS is one voice channel wide, it seems to have been conceived for a 3 kHz wide voice channel, as usual with SSB radios. Its width is comparable with accepted modes like MT63 or Olivia xx:2000. It is not an automated mode, it is meant for keyboarding. Its spectrum spreading is hardly the way WiFi works, nor the hopping mode of some HF tactical radios. It is not the way spread spectrum is defined in my paper bound 1986 ARRL Handbook or Operating Manual. There is nothing secret with it as far as I have seen, if you have the public program. I have not seen the specs, but I have watched it in a loopback connection using Spectran. I have the pictures stored in my HD. Limits in nowadays technology are more complex, or fuzzier, perhaps. But ROS is neither wider than a voice channel nor an automated mode. Of course, it is ALWAYS a 3 kHz wide channel, and should be accomodated accordingly, say, like Olivia xx:2000. And I agree that in legalese, the wording is extremely important. A badly worded claim may do more damage than obtaining meager benefits. 73, Jose, CO2JA
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]]
The final ARRL petition didn't change the rules in 97.221 for automatic stations: APPENDIX A – AMENDED March 22, 2007 PROPOSED RULE CHANGES Part 97 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulation is proposed to be amended as follows: Section 97.3(a)(8) is amended to read as follows: (8) Bandwidth. For a given class of emission, the width of the frequency band which is just sufficient to ensure the transmission of information at the rate and with the quality required under specified conditions (See the definition of Necessary Bandwidth in Section 2.1 of this Chapter and Section 97.101(a) of this Part). Section 97.3(a)(42) is amended to read as follows: (42) Spurious Emission. For the purposes of this Part, emission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the allocated frequency band and which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products. Section 97.119 is amended to read as follows: § 97.119 Station identification. * (b)… (1) By a CW or MCW emission. When keyed by an automatic device used only for identification, the speed must not exceed 20 words per minute; (2) Where phone emissions are permitted, by a phone emission in the English language. Use of a standard phonetic alphabet as an aid for correct station identification is encouraged; (3) By the same emission as used for the communication. (4) (Deleted) Section 97.305 is amended to read as follows: § 97.305 Authorized emission types. * (b) A station may transmit a test emission on any frequency authorized to the control operator for brief periods for experimental purposes. Test transmissions are authorized in the segments 51-54 MHz, 144.1-148.0 MHz and on all bands above 222 MHz. (c) Pulse emissions are permitted on all bands authorized to the control operator above 902 MHz except in the 23 cm and 3 cm bands. (d) SS emissions are permitted on all bands authorized to the control operator above 222 MHz. (e) A station may transmit the following emission types on the frequencies indicated, as authorized to the control operator, subject to the standards specified in § 97.307(f) of this part; except that on frequencies below 28.0 MHz, a Station having a control operator holding a Novice Class or Technician Class operator license may only transmit a CW emission using the international Morse code. Wavelength band Frequencies Emission Types Authorized Standards, see §97.307(f), paragraph: MF: 160 m Entire band RTTY, data (3) -do- -do- Phone, image (1), (2) HF: 80 m Entire band RTTY, data (3) 75 m Entire band Phone, image (1), (2) 40 m 7.000-7.125 MHz RTTY, data (3) 40 m 7.075-7.100 MHz Phone, image (1), (2), (4) 40 m 7.125-7.300 MHz Phone, image (1), (2) 30 m Entire band RTTY, data (3) 20 m 14.00-14.15 MHz RTTY, data (3) -do- 14.15-14.35 MHz Phone, image (1), (2) 17 m 18.068-18.110 MHz RTTY, data (3) -do- 18.110-18.168 MHz Phone, image (1), (2) 15 m 21.0-21.2 MHz RTTY, data (3) -do- 21.20-21.45 MHz Phone, image (1), (2) 12 m 24.89-24.93 MHz RTTY, data (3) -do- 24.93-24.99 MHz Phone, image (1), (2) (f) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, a station may transmit any emission on any frequency authorized to the control operator subject to the following bandwidth limitations: Wavelength band Frequencies authorized Maximum bandwidth Standards See §97.307(f) paragraph: 10 m 28.00-28.05 MHz 200 Hz -do- 28.05-28.120 MHz 500 Hz -do- 28.120-29.0 MHz 3 kHz (5) -do- 29.0-29.7 MHz 16 kHz 6 m 50.0-50.1 MHz 200 Hz -do- 50.1-50.3 MHz 3 kHz -do- 50.3-54 MHz 100 kHz 2 m 144.0-144.1 MHz 200 Hz -do- 144.1-144.3 MHz 3 kHz -do- 144.3-148.0 MHz 100 kHz 1.25 m 219-220 MHz 100 kHz -do- 222-225 MHz - (6) 70 cm Entire band - (6) 33 cm Entire band - (6) 23 cm Entire band - (6) 13 cm Entire band - (6) 9 cm Entire band - (6)
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]]
John, The principle of regulation by bandwidth that was fostered by Winlink through the ARRL was that any mode would be allowed in a particular segment of bandwidths as long as the bandwidth was the same or similar. No restriction on content or operating methods.This would have meant that the messaging stations would have full access to all of the phone bands with no restrictions. For example, Pactor-III which has about 100% duty cycle (modulation), compared to 30% average for uncompressed phone, could easily displace any phone QSO and the phone operator would not even be able to identify the interfering station because he would not be operating Pactor-III. The result would have been dominance by messaging systems with no place left to have phone QSO's without the possiblity of being interfered with by an automatic messaging station. Messaging stations are run with ARQ so they fear competition of their own kind and you can often see two automatic stations battling automatically for a frequency. As a result they want to spread out over the band as much as possible to avoid interference from each other instead of sharing frequencies on a first-come-first-served basis like everyone else. If you modify regulation by bandwidth to limit certain incompatible modes or operating methods, then it is no longer regulation by bandwidth, but back to regulation by mode (perhaps also with some regulation by operating method thrown in for protection of some interests), but the FCC is happy with the regulation by mode we currently have, and they have seen no good reason to change what works for most communications already. Note that there is phone (wide) and CW and PSK31 (narrow) only to deal with now and digital operators are in the distinct minority, so there is little incentive to upset the apple cart to accomodate a minority of new modes. They may, in time, but only after careful consideration of all the arguments and proposals. As a result of opposition from everyone else except the messaging stations, the ARRL was forced to withdraw the petition and the FCC continues with regulation by mode instead of merely by bandwidth. As it stands, if spread spectrum were allowed without any limitation on bandwidth or requirement for third party copying, since there is no limitation on bandwidth on the HF bands, the band could be filled with spread spectrum stations covering wide bandwidths and once there are many spread spectrum stations, the fact that a single station will not interfere very long becomes a huge multitude of frequency-hopped signals that in the aggregate, that could cover many frequencies at once. What we hope is that the FCC will someday allow spread spectrum as long as it is limited in bandwidth to 3000 Hz and copiable by third parties for frequency mediation and identification when necessary. To do this, it will be necessary for the FCC to consider all arguments pro and con and decide whether or not to allow a limited form of spread spectrum on HF and VHF. The impact of a single spread spectrum station only cannot be the only consideration, but instead the impact of a multitude of spread spectrum stations, all transmitting at the same time on different frequencies. This obviously complicates the decision enormously, so the FCC needs to act carefully in order not to make a mistake. BTW, I have been monitoring 14.101 for several hours and ROS just froze in Windows 7 with an error message, Run-time error 5. Invalid procedure call or argument 73 - Skip KH6TY John B. Stephensen wrote: The current restrictions on automatic stations can stay in place with regulation by bandwidth so this shouln't be an impediment. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - *From:* KH6TY mailto:kh...@comcast.net *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Sunday, February 21, 2010 22:30 UTC *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]] There are those who think that regulation by bandwidth would solve everything, but there are also those who would love that chance to take over the HF bands with automated messaging services so they do not have to worry about crowding anymore. You can be thankful for regulations that both protect, and also allow, with limitations, and that cannot be changed without a sufficient period of public comment from all users so that all sides can be heard from. The FCC adheres to such a process.
[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, n9dsj n9...@... wrote: Hi Jim, Actually CHIP worked ok, especially on the low bands. The Virginia NTS net used this and still may. Worked OK, but I didn't think it worked as well as or better than other modes that were more popular. Jim W6JVE
Re: [digitalradio] ROS sked group
I think I have lost the message. There has been so many, did someone come up with a ROS mode sked page yesterday. Please could someone link to it. PS Monitoring 3.600mhz just now, I see Jose has put 3.60605 on the page. For 16 baud (is this where everyone is?) Toby mm0tob Reply to sender | Reply to group Messages in this topic (8) Recent Activity: New Members 15 New Files 3 Visit Your Group Start a New Topic Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS sked group
http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/ click on digital or... if you are greedy.. http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Toby Burnett ruff...@hebrides.net wrote: I think I have lost the message. There has been so many, did someone come up with a ROS mode sked page yesterday. Please could someone link to it. PS Monitoring 3.600mhz just now, I see Jose has put 3.60605 on the page. For 16 baud (is this where everyone is?) Toby mm0tob
Re: [digitalradio] ROS sked group
Cheers Andy. ---Original Message--- From: Andy obrien Date: 22/02/2010 00:14:07 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS sked group http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/ click on digital or... if you are greedy.. http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Toby Burnett ruff...@hebrides.net wrote: I think I have lost the message. There has been so many, did someone come up with a ROS mode sked page yesterday. Please could someone link to it. PS Monitoring 3.600mhz just now, I see Jose has put 3.60605 on the page. For 16 baud (is this where everyone is?) Toby mm0tob
[digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams
Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio operators to obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use of ROS on HF without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise, hams will need an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA. Sadly, this may lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams. If ROS Modem had simply provided the technical specifications of the emission, and not called it Spread Spectrum, there would have been a chance for it to be easily adopted by Ham Radio operators in USA. But, the ROS modem designer is rightfully proud of the design, and he lives in a country that is not bound by FCC rules, and probably had little or no knowledge of how his advertising might prevent thousands of hams from using it in USA. But, as they say, You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung. ROS signal can be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other types of n-ary-FSK presently in widespread use by USA hams. The specific algorithms for signal process and format could simply have been documented without calling it Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Since it is a narrowband signal (using the FCC and ITU definitions of narrowband emission = less than 3kHz) within the width of an SSB passband, it does not fit the traditional FHSS description as a conventional wideband technique. It probably would not have been viewed as FHSS under the spirit and intention of the FCC rules. It doesn't hop the VFO frequency. It simply FSKs according to a programmable algorithm, and it meets the infamous 1kHz shift 300 baud rule. http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#307f3 This is a typical example of how outdated the present FCC rules are, keeping USA hams in TECHNOLOGY JAIL while the rest of the world's hams move forward with digital technology. It should come as no surprise that most of the new ham radio digital modes are not being developed in USA! But, for a moment, let's put aside the issue of current FCC prohibition against Spread Spectrum and/or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum, and how it relates to ROS mode. Let's look at bandwidth. There is the other issue of bandwidth that some misguided USA hams have brought up here and in other forums related to ROS. Some superstitious hams seem to erroneously think that there is an over-reaching bandwidth limit in the FCC rules for data/text modes on HF that might indicate what part of the ham band to operate it or not operate it. FACT: There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on HF data/text emission in USA ham bands, except for the sub-band and band edges. FACT: FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on content of the emission, not bandwidth. New SDR radios have the potential to transmit and receive wider bandwidths than the traditional 3kHz SSB passband. We will see a lot more development in this area of technology in the future, and a lot more gray areas of 20th century FCC rules that inhibit innovation and progress for ham radio HF digital technology in the 21st century. Several years ago, there was a proposal to FCC to provide regulation by bandwidth rather than content. However, it failed to be adopted, and ARRL's petition to limit bandwidth was withdrawn http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/04/27/101/?nc=1 Thus, USA hams will continue to be in Technology Jail without access to many new modes in the foreseeable future :( Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Try some JT65A
Well, ROS 1 and 16 look like good new modes. I think I will give up on this mode until the FCC clarifies the legality for USA hams. For those having fun With ROS, don't forget much the same fun can be had with JT65A (ROS1) or Olivia (ROS 16). I am monitoring 3576 JT65A overnight Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]]
The last thing you want is a ruling. Please be careful what you wish for. The FCC has written rules that permit a lot of experimentation. Please do not push them to over regulate. To date, we have lost more than gained by forcing the FCC to get involved. From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:30:50 -0500 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]] The FCC is only concerned with what happens to the resultant RF energy and what is done with it, not how that RF is generated. In the case of ROS, if the data is applied to an RF carrier and the frequency then hopped, that would classify it as spread spectrum. The rules are FCC rules and currently specifically specify spread spectrum to be used only at 222Mhz and above. If it were not for that specific reference and the statement by Jose that frequency hopping is used, then the rules might be subject to interpretation. As it presently is, Jose would have a tough time in a court of law to prove he does not use frequency hopping or spread spectrum, as he has already claimed. Our best chance to legally use ROS in the US is for the FCC to issue a ruling. As amateurs, and not even lawyers, we are not competent to second-guess the FCC's lawyers and as long as there are so many previous claims that ROS is spread spectrum, we are stuck with that definition. Our best hope is to get the FCC to amend the regulations, or make an exception, to allow spread spectrum as long as it is capable of being monitored by third parties and does not exceed the bandwidth of a phone signal, and ROS would meet all of those conditions. There are those who think that regulation by bandwidth would solve everything, but there are also those who would love that chance to take over the HF bands with automated messaging services so they do not have to worry about crowding anymore. You can be thankful for regulations that both protect, and also allow, with limitations, and that cannot be changed without a sufficient period of public comment from all users so that all sides can be heard from. The FCC adheres to such a process. 73 - Skip KH6TY w2xj wrote: There are two very common misconceptions in that theory. The first is that SS is unto itself not always a fully digital mode. and A, F, or J in that case indicates the nature of the narrow band signal being spread. So SS with a J designator would be an SSB signal digitally spread by the PN code. When received, it is de-spread to an analog SSB signal. Sound card modes are not necessarily SSB. We use the SSB process as a convenient easy to deploy up converter when operating in these modes, the modulation occurs in the computer code and could be transmitted with varying degrees of ease by other means. CW via sound card is still CW as is the case with RTTY. ROS is no exception. It is quite possible to drive a DDS chip on frequency and accomplish the exact same result only at the expense of greater complexity. KH6TY wrote: Rik, Did you see the recent post by K3DCW? The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3 Definitions, Para C, line 8: /(8) SS/. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. ROS uses SSB so the first designator is J (this meets the definition) and it uses bandwidth-expansion. (this meets that definition as well) Thus, taking this definition literally, it is indeed Spread Spectrum and is thus illegal below 222MHzat least that the conservative interpretation that I'll stick with until we get a ruling otherwise. Dave K3DCW Obviously, with such a new mode, there has been no ITU description of ROS. If it used bandwidth expansion (i.e. frequency hopping), it is obviously to be classified as spread spectrum. Whether or not modes like MT63 and Olivia are essentially the same is debatable. The problem seems to be the direct reference to bandwidth expansion (but within the width of a phone signal), which, until ruled otherwise (and I hope it will be) is spread spectrum according to the current FCC rules, and is currently legal only above 222 Mhz. 73 - Skip KH6TY Rik van Riel wrote: On 02/21/2010 02:17 PM, w2xj wrote: I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to support such operation: Lets look at it in another way. Part 97.3 is quite specific about what modes are considered spread spectrum: (8) SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the
[digitalradio] Re: Try some JT65A
Andy, Another very sensitive mode to try is Olivia 32/500 or even 64/500. Tony and I managed perfect copy at QRP levels with a very poor path. Bit faster than JT65 too. 73 Sholto --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: Well, ROS 1 and 16 look like good new modes. I think I will give up on this mode until the FCC clarifies the legality for USA hams. For those having fun With ROS, don't forget much the same fun can be had with JT65A (ROS1) or Olivia (ROS 16). I am monitoring 3576 JT65A overnight Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Try some JT65A
Interesting, I will have to give 64/500 a try. Andy K3UK On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:02 PM, sholtofish sho...@probikekit.com wrote: Andy, Another very sensitive mode to try is Olivia 32/500 or even 64/500. Tony and I managed perfect copy at QRP levels with a very poor path. Bit faster than JT65 too. 73 Sholto --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: Well, ROS 1 and 16 look like good new modes. I think I will give up on this mode until the FCC clarifies the legality for USA hams. For those having fun With ROS, don't forget much the same fun can be had with JT65A (ROS1) or Olivia (ROS 16). I am monitoring 3576 JT65A overnight Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams
You can't unscramble eggs. On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:09 PM, expeditionradio expeditionra...@yahoo.comwrote: Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio operators to obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use of ROS on HF without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise, hams will need an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA. Sadly, this may lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams. If ROS Modem had simply provided the technical specifications of the emission, and not called it Spread Spectrum, there would have been a chance for it to be easily adopted by Ham Radio operators in USA. But, the ROS modem designer is rightfully proud of the design, and he lives in a country that is not bound by FCC rules, and probably had little or no knowledge of how his advertising might prevent thousands of hams from using it in USA. But, as they say, You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung. ROS signal can be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other types of n-ary-FSK presently in widespread use by USA hams. The specific algorithms for signal process and format could simply have been documented without calling it Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Since it is a narrowband signal (using the FCC and ITU definitions of narrowband emission = less than 3kHz) within the width of an SSB passband, it does not fit the traditional FHSS description as a conventional wideband technique. It probably would not have been viewed as FHSS under the spirit and intention of the FCC rules. It doesn't hop the VFO frequency. It simply FSKs according to a programmable algorithm, and it meets the infamous 1kHz shift 300 baud rule. http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#307f3 This is a typical example of how outdated the present FCC rules are, keeping USA hams in TECHNOLOGY JAIL while the rest of the world's hams move forward with digital technology. It should come as no surprise that most of the new ham radio digital modes are not being developed in USA! But, for a moment, let's put aside the issue of current FCC prohibition against Spread Spectrum and/or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum, and how it relates to ROS mode. Let's look at bandwidth. There is the other issue of bandwidth that some misguided USA hams have brought up here and in other forums related to ROS. Some superstitious hams seem to erroneously think that there is an over-reaching bandwidth limit in the FCC rules for data/text modes on HF that might indicate what part of the ham band to operate it or not operate it. FACT: There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on HF data/text emission in USA ham bands, except for the sub-band and band edges. FACT: FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on content of the emission, not bandwidth. New SDR radios have the potential to transmit and receive wider bandwidths than the traditional 3kHz SSB passband. We will see a lot more development in this area of technology in the future, and a lot more gray areas of 20th century FCC rules that inhibit innovation and progress for ham radio HF digital technology in the 21st century. Several years ago, there was a proposal to FCC to provide regulation by bandwidth rather than content. However, it failed to be adopted, and ARRL's petition to limit bandwidth was withdrawn http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/04/27/101/?nc=1 Thus, USA hams will continue to be in Technology Jail without access to many new modes in the foreseeable future :( Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams
Bonnie you have a Ham unfriendly addenda. Say what you like but at the end of the day it is BS. From: expeditionradio expeditionra...@yahoo.com Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:09:14 - To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio operators to obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use of ROS on HF without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise, hams will need an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA. Sadly, this may lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams. If ROS Modem had simply provided the technical specifications of the emission, and not called it Spread Spectrum, there would have been a chance for it to be easily adopted by Ham Radio operators in USA. But, the ROS modem designer is rightfully proud of the design, and he lives in a country that is not bound by FCC rules, and probably had little or no knowledge of how his advertising might prevent thousands of hams from using it in USA. But, as they say, You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung. ROS signal can be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other types of n-ary-FSK presently in widespread use by USA hams. The specific algorithms for signal process and format could simply have been documented without calling it Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Since it is a narrowband signal (using the FCC and ITU definitions of narrowband emission = less than 3kHz) within the width of an SSB passband, it does not fit the traditional FHSS description as a conventional wideband technique. It probably would not have been viewed as FHSS under the spirit and intention of the FCC rules. It doesn't hop the VFO frequency. It simply FSKs according to a programmable algorithm, and it meets the infamous 1kHz shift 300 baud rule. http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#307f3 This is a typical example of how outdated the present FCC rules are, keeping USA hams in TECHNOLOGY JAIL while the rest of the world's hams move forward with digital technology. It should come as no surprise that most of the new ham radio digital modes are not being developed in USA! But, for a moment, let's put aside the issue of current FCC prohibition against Spread Spectrum and/or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum, and how it relates to ROS mode. Let's look at bandwidth. There is the other issue of bandwidth that some misguided USA hams have brought up here and in other forums related to ROS. Some superstitious hams seem to erroneously think that there is an over-reaching bandwidth limit in the FCC rules for data/text modes on HF that might indicate what part of the ham band to operate it or not operate it. FACT: There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on HF data/text emission in USA ham bands, except for the sub-band and band edges. FACT: FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on content of the emission, not bandwidth. New SDR radios have the potential to transmit and receive wider bandwidths than the traditional 3kHz SSB passband. We will see a lot more development in this area of technology in the future, and a lot more gray areas of 20th century FCC rules that inhibit innovation and progress for ham radio HF digital technology in the 21st century. Several years ago, there was a proposal to FCC to provide regulation by bandwidth rather than content. However, it failed to be adopted, and ARRL's petition to limit bandwidth was withdrawn http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/04/27/101/?nc=1 Thus, USA hams will continue to be in Technology Jail without access to many new modes in the foreseeable future :( Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA
[digitalradio] Re: USA digital bandplan chart
Hi Andy, First I'd like to say that I think I can argue both sides of the coin on this matter. I think it is a very good idea to have a generally accepted and commonly known watering holes for the various modes to facilitate ease of finding another station in a particular mode. How about a specific frequency unique to every mode that would be a calling freq. You establish communications and move off elsewhere. I also like the idea of, by a gentleman's agreement, setting aside some specific freqs for some of the unattended modes/protocols: ALE, Winmor, PACTOR, (possibly other modes like: PropNetPSK, WSPR) etc. to ease interference issues both ways. On the other hand, I would not want a 3rd party who is non-involved in a particular communication with a station to come on freq and berate me for using a mode out of the spectrum slice allotted. For example, what if you and I were using Olivia 500 on 20M (more specifically 14.092 MHz) and then we decided we wanted to use MT-63 1k. Would we have to move?? I think that should be decided by both stations depending on how busy the adjacent frequencies are. We should also take into account if by using a wider mode if we would be interfering with another ongoing communication. I don't think it should be set in stone that if we were to switch modes that we would have to also switch spectrum slices, it might make it harder for us to re-establish communications if the frequency we agreed upon was in use by someone else. We should however keep in mind that we might want to move to a different spectrum slice to help alleviate any overcrowding and allow other stations that wished to use a certain mode in the allotted spectrum slice to do so. On 20M, I would suggest reversing the order of RTTY and digi modes for the segments of 14.080-14.093 14.093-14.096. The reason I say that is because in my opinion I feel that it is already a preconceived agreement by a wider group that RTTY is operated starting at 14.080 and on up, and is used pretty heavily during contests and DXing. I think we'd be pushing a boulder uphill. In this case work with a stronger force rather than against it. I also feel that the amounts of the spectrum slices in this case should be reversed. Give the greater amount to RTTY and the lesser amount to the digital modes. During a RTTY contest weekend I think many stations would start around 14.080 and work upwards. With that in mind, I'm curious why we don't use the higher end of the 20M CW subband more predominantly for digi modes; I'm referring to higher than 14.100 MHz (leaving adequate room for the NCDXF beacons there). Please forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't that suffice for bandplans worldwide? I feel that even if we were to use PSK31 RTTY that there would be plenty of room still for all of the other digital modes upstairs. Generally speaking it's pretty quiet; look at the number of QSO's you've had there in digi or CW. Again, my opinion is that I feel that giving spectrum slices to groupings of digi modes can be beneficial to users. I would like it to be recommended more as a gentleman's agreement, rather than set in stone that ONLY those modes can and should be operated there. A general guideline rather than a law. 73 de W8RIT Dave --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: http://www.obriensweb.com/bandmap.html A quick and dirty chart. Comments welcome.
[digitalradio] Re: FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams
I find it very interesting that this entire discussion, under more than one thread already closed by Andy (thank you sir) that the main discussion is to the legality of spread spectrum in the HF bands, without a real understanding of the actual technical definitions/differences between spread spectrum vs PSK. Since the real modulation scheme of ROS is actually a form of FSK or PSK ( which does indeed cause the actual transmitted frequency to shift based on the modulation signal present at any given moment). Someone please explain to me the difference. If ROS is illegal simply because the author happened to call it spread spectrum in his papers, then I suspect we have far more problems than this discussion even begins to touch on. As has been said repeatedly in these threads, Olivia, JT65a, and various other FSK modes could just as easily be called spread spectrum and suddenly by those rule book quoters be declared illegal. However, they are not. They are rightfully called PSK, such as BPSK, 31PSK, etc. Heck, for that matter, if you wished to get real technical, the very method of modulating any form of SSB becomes a slight form of FSK YES, the rule book (part 97) does say spread spectrum is illegal below 222 mhz, however, it does not get into the details of precisely what spread spectrum is, nor does it discuss the method of modulating it so as to define the difference between PSK and spread spectrum. These discussions become quite lively every single time a new mode surfaces (remember SSTV, digital modes in general, etc. etc. etc.) Each time the very same discussion ensues all quoting some text from the part 97 without regards to whether it really applies or not. Then the discussion begins around the rules rather than the legitimacy of the discussion to begin with. Thanks Andy for recognizing the circular propensity of some of the other threads discussing the same thing. As to whether the ROS mode is illegal or not, I have no clue, nor do I pretend to, nor do I care. I suspect that the intent of the FCC rules is to preserve and protect the bands, and I do know that experimentation is more than just expected or tolerated, but is virtually mandated by the very nature of our hobby/service by law. John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio expeditionra...@... wrote: Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio operators to obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use of ROS on HF without some type of experimental license or waiver.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA digital bandplan chart
Thanks for the feedback, some very good points. I think the higher end of CW portions, is an especially good point. Andy K3UK On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:50 PM, W8RIT w8...@qsl.net wrote: Hi Andy, First I'd like to say that I think I can argue both sides of the coin on this matter. I think it is a very good idea to have a generally accepted and commonly known watering holes for the various modes to facilitate ease of finding another station in a particular mode. How about a specific frequency unique to every mode that would be a calling freq. You establish communications and move off elsewhere. I also like the idea of, by a gentleman's agreement, setting aside some specific freqs for some of the unattended modes/protocols: ALE, Winmor, PACTOR, (possibly other modes like: PropNetPSK, WSPR) etc. to ease interference issues both ways. On the other hand, I would not want a 3rd party who is non-involved in a particular communication with a station to come on freq and berate me for using a mode out of the spectrum slice allotted. For example, what if you and I were using Olivia 500 on 20M (more specifically 14.092 MHz) and then we decided we wanted to use MT-63 1k. Would we have to move?? I think that should be decided by both stations depending on how busy the adjacent frequencies are. We should also take into account if by using a wider mode if we would be interfering with another ongoing communication. I don't think it should be set in stone that if we were to switch modes that we would have to also switch spectrum slices, it might make it harder for us to re-establish communications if the frequency we agreed upon was in use by someone else. We should however keep in mind that we might want to move to a different spectrum slice to help alleviate any overcrowding and allow other stations that wished to use a certain mode in the allotted spectrum slice to do so. On 20M, I would suggest reversing the order of RTTY and digi modes for the segments of 14.080-14.093 14.093-14.096. The reason I say that is because in my opinion I feel that it is already a preconceived agreement by a wider group that RTTY is operated starting at 14.080 and on up, and is used pretty heavily during contests and DXing. I think we'd be pushing a boulder uphill. In this case work with a stronger force rather than against it. I also feel that the amounts of the spectrum slices in this case should be reversed. Give the greater amount to RTTY and the lesser amount to the digital modes. During a RTTY contest weekend I think many stations would start around 14.080 and work upwards. With that in mind, I'm curious why we don't use the higher end of the 20M CW subband more predominantly for digi modes; I'm referring to higher than 14.100 MHz (leaving adequate room for the NCDXF beacons there). Please forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't that suffice for bandplans worldwide? I feel that even if we were to use PSK31 RTTY that there would be plenty of room still for all of the other digital modes upstairs. Generally speaking it's pretty quiet; look at the number of QSO's you've had there in digi or CW. Again, my opinion is that I feel that giving spectrum slices to groupings of digi modes can be beneficial to users. I would like it to be recommended more as a gentleman's agreement, rather than set in stone that ONLY those modes can and should be operated there. A general guideline rather than a law. 73 de W8RIT Dave
Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams
Bonnie's note describes the US/FCC regulations issues regarding ROS and SS really well. It's the best description of the US problem I've seen on this reflector. After reading what seems like hundreds of notes, I now agree that if ROS uses FHSS techniques, as its author says it does (and none of us has seen the code), then even though it 1) uses less 3 kHz bandwidth, 2) does not appear to do any more harm than a SSB signal and 3) is similar to other FSK modes, it is not legal in FCC jurisdictions. As Bonnie points out, ROS doesn't hop the VFO frequency, but within the 2.5 bandwidth, it technically is SS. This would be true if ROS used 300 Hz bandwidth instead of 2.5 kHz, but hopped about using FHSS within the 300 Hz bandwidth. So I have to agree the FCC regs are not well written in this case. Regarding the corollary issue of US/FCC regulations focused on content instead of bandwidth, I'm not competent to comment. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: expeditionradio To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 5:09 PM Subject: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio operators to obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use of ROS on HF without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise, hams will need an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA. Sadly, this may lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams. If ROS Modem had simply provided the technical specifications of the emission, and not called it Spread Spectrum, there would have been a chance for it to be easily adopted by Ham Radio operators in USA. But, the ROS modem designer is rightfully proud of the design, and he lives in a country that is not bound by FCC rules, and probably had little or no knowledge of how his advertising might prevent thousands of hams from using it in USA. But, as they say, You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung. ROS signal can be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other types of n-ary-FSK presently in widespread use by USA hams. The specific algorithms for signal process and format could simply have been documented without calling it Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Since it is a narrowband signal (using the FCC and ITU definitions of narrowband emission = less than 3kHz) within the width of an SSB passband, it does not fit the traditional FHSS description as a conventional wideband technique. It probably would not have been viewed as FHSS under the spirit and intention of the FCC rules. It doesn't hop the VFO frequency. It simply FSKs according to a programmable algorithm, and it meets the infamous 1kHz shift 300 baud rule. http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#307f3 This is a typical example of how outdated the present FCC rules are, keeping USA hams in TECHNOLOGY JAIL while the rest of the world's hams move forward with digital technology. It should come as no surprise that most of the new ham radio digital modes are not being developed in USA! But, for a moment, let's put aside the issue of current FCC prohibition against Spread Spectrum and/or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum, and how it relates to ROS mode. Let's look at bandwidth. There is the other issue of bandwidth that some misguided USA hams have brought up here and in other forums related to ROS. Some superstitious hams seem to erroneously think that there is an over-reaching bandwidth limit in the FCC rules for data/text modes on HF that might indicate what part of the ham band to operate it or not operate it. FACT: There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on HF data/text emission in USA ham bands, except for the sub-band and band edges. FACT: FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on content of the emission, not bandwidth. New SDR radios have the potential to transmit and receive wider bandwidths than the traditional 3kHz SSB passband. We will see a lot more development in this area of technology in the future, and a lot more gray areas of 20th century FCC rules that inhibit innovation and progress for ham radio HF digital technology in the 21st century. Several years ago, there was a proposal to FCC to provide regulation by bandwidth rather than content. However, it failed to be adopted, and ARRL's petition to limit bandwidth was withdrawn http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/04/27/101/?nc=1 Thus, USA hams will continue to be in Technology Jail without access to many new modes in the foreseeable future :( Best Wishes, Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams
RF is RF and the FCC does not care how the frequency expansion is done, whether by VFO shift or supressed carrier tone shift. I am shocked that Bonnie does not understand that simple principle. For example, true FSK is done by VFO shift, but FSK is also done on SSB by tone shift. The result is identical, the only difference being that the transceiver does not have to be linear with FSK shift, but it does with tone frequency shift to prevent splatter. The problem with ROS is that the frequency shift is by a method too similar to that used in VFO-shifting spread spectrum (frequency hopping) transceivers, so to the observer, there is no difference. It is the frequency hopping that makes ROS spread spectrum, and unfortunately, that is against the FCC regulations. If it were not, there could possibly be spread spectrum transceivers using tone shifts much wider than an IF bandwidth, even using soundcards, just like SDR's spectrum displays use. In that case, more than one voice channel would be taken up for the benefit of the SS user, to the detriment of adjacent stations, or even those farther away, if there were no other limitations on bandwidth utilized. 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: Bonnie you have a Ham unfriendly addenda. Say what you like but at the end of the day it is BS. *From: *expeditionradio expeditionra...@yahoo.com expeditionra...@yahoo.com *Reply-To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Date: *Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:09:14 - *To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *[digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio operators to obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use of ROS on HF without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise, hams will need an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA. Sadly, this may lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams. If ROS Modem had simply provided the technical specifications of the emission, and not called it Spread Spectrum, there would have been a chance for it to be easily adopted by Ham Radio operators in USA. But, the ROS modem designer is rightfully proud of the design, and he lives in a country that is not bound by FCC rules, and probably had little or no knowledge of how his advertising might prevent thousands of hams from using it in USA. But, as they say, You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung. ROS signal can be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other types of n-ary-FSK presently in widespread use by USA hams. The specific algorithms for signal process and format could simply have been documented without calling it Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Since it is a narrowband signal (using the FCC and ITU definitions of narrowband emission = less than 3kHz) within the width of an SSB passband, it does not fit the traditional FHSS description as a conventional wideband technique. It probably would not have been viewed as FHSS under the spirit and intention of the FCC rules. It doesn't hop the VFO frequency. It simply FSKs according to a programmable algorithm, and it meets the infamous 1kHz shift 300 baud rule. http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#307f3 http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#307f3 This is a typical example of how outdated the present FCC rules are, keeping USA hams in TECHNOLOGY JAIL while the rest of the world's hams move forward with digital technology. It should come as no surprise that most of the new ham radio digital modes are not being developed in USA! But, for a moment, let's put aside the issue of current FCC prohibition against Spread Spectrum and/or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum, and how it relates to ROS mode. Let's look at bandwidth. There is the other issue of bandwidth that some misguided USA hams have brought up here and in other forums related to ROS. Some superstitious hams seem to erroneously think that there is an over-reaching bandwidth limit in the FCC rules for data/text modes on HF that might indicate what part of the ham band to operate it or not operate it. FACT: There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on HF data/text emission in USA ham bands, except for the sub-band and band edges. FACT: FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on content of the emission, not bandwidth. New SDR radios have the potential to transmit and receive wider bandwidths than the traditional 3kHz SSB passband. We will see a lot more development in this area of technology in the future, and a lot more gray areas of 20th century FCC rules that inhibit innovation and progress for ham radio HF digital technology in the 21st
Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams
Feel free to disagree, but please show respect for opinions that differ from yours. BS is not the most respectful term when disagreeing. Andy K3UK On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:36 PM, W2XJ w...@w2xj.net wrote: Bonnie you have a Ham unfriendly addenda. Say what you like but at the end of the day it is BS.
