[digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
Is the random or pseudo-random manner of generating the tones or carriers an essential element of spread-spectrum? If so, and if the aim of using such a method is not to obfuscate the message but only to provide better immunity to interference and path variations, would you be any worse off using a repeated pattern of tones instead of a pseudo-randomly generated one? And if you did that, would it still be spread-spectrum? Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: I can't fathom the reason for doing that, but if the tone frequencies are pseudo-randomly generated and then modulated by either on/off keying or some other way, you will have a spread spectrum system, similar to what is done in the ROS 2200 Hz-wide modes. The tones in a ssb transmitter simply generate rf carriers, so varying the tone frequencies is no different than varying a vfo frequency as far as the outside world sees. The distinction in spread spectrum is the generation of the tone frequencies independently of the data. I.e., you first generate a tone frequency in a psudo-random manner and then convey intelligence by modulating the resulting rf carriers. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
The difference between spread spectrum and other systems is the pseudo-random generating of the frequencies and not frequencies determined by the data. It was originally done to prevent decoding without the synchronization code. It is only disallowed under FCC regulations on that basis. SSB also uses frequency spreading as has already been noted, but the frequencies are determined by the code. That is why there is no reason not to allow ROS except that technically the frequencies are independently determined by pseudo-random code generator. Modify the regulations to limit the bandwidth and require third-party monitoring and ROS would be legal, but as the regulations stand, rightly or wrongly, we are required to abide by them. The petition process with public comment prevents harmful emissions from being used. Glad we are at the point you wanted to make. I have spent much to much time on this FHSS vs regulations issue, so I have to go on to something else now. The FCC has spoken, and correctly so, and if anyone wants to petition to change the regulations, they can do so. 73 - Skip KH6TY rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Hi Skip, Thanks, we have arrived at the point I wanted to get to, So lets go a little further on this path, suppose I changed the tones in a not so random fashion. Like I had a way to generate tones as I do when I speak or make music or like some of those synthesizers or whatever they are, do not know the details exactly, but they generate tones that make up language that it understandable, with training would that be spread spectrum? You say varying the tones is the same as varying the VFO to the outside world, is that science? Would it make a difference if feed the balance modulator with 100 Hz or 2500 Hz. lets switch between to tunes, teletype, is that SS? If I produce speech it is speech if the tones do not form speech, it is ss modulation? Are you seeing that SSB is SS? as A kid I use to build oscillators I could speak to them, and they would swing, and could hear speach in a radio, unstability or FM , SS? Lets get to the core is WSJT spread spectrum and please explain to me why. I just do not seem to get it... Explain me the physics of it. please I just like to understand this. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net Sent: Mar 9, 2010 7:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts I can't fathom the reason for doing that, but if the tone frequencies are pseudo-randomly generated and then modulated by either on/off keying or some other way, you will have a spread spectrum system, similar to what is done in the ROS 2200 Hz-wide modes. The tones in a ssb transmitter simply generate rf carriers, so varying the tone frequencies is no different than varying a vfo frequency as far as the outside world sees. The distinction in spread spectrum is the generation of the tone frequencies independently of the data. I.e., you first generate a tone frequency in a psudo-random manner and then convey intelligence by modulating the resulting rf carriers. 73 - Skip KH6TY Ralph Mowery wrote: Correct but you still have not answered my question. Indeed If I use one tone and key it on / off I have a cw transmitter, transmitting on the VJO frequebcy = or - the audio frequency. What do I have if I just change the tones in a random fashion? 73 Rein W6SZ If a total random fashion, then you have a bunch of junk. It will not convey any useful information and probably illeagle in the ham bands. There must be order to it to convey any useful information.
[digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Excactly!. But this also is an inherent possiblility/advantage running PACTOR 1, in FSK mode both ARQ and PACTOR FEC mode. And the Fec mode, defaulted with 2 repeats, can at the cost of speed be increased to 5 to increase robustnes. An extra advantage is fully 8bit information both in ARQ and Fec modes. The special IC 706 350hz narrow filter proved to be ideal for the porpose, even running 300baud GTOR FSK. I was surprised, testing both 500hz and 350hz. But of course you needed to be right on target. WHY HASNT THIS BEEN USED MORE ALL THESE YEARS before you could move filters around in LSB and USB modes? Just a question. 73 de la7um Finn --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave AA6YQ aa...@... wrote: The advantage of using FSK is that one can take advantage of the excellent RTTY filters built into some transceivers. These filters are generally not available when operating in USB/LSB. This is particularly important to contesters operating in a crowded environment and DXers dealing with weak signals. 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of g4ilo Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:54 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 It also doesn't suffer from the ridiculous printing up garbage because a shift character was lost. If there ever was an outdated mode, it's RTTY. Unfortunately logic or technical arguments play very little part in the reason why people choose to use particular modes. Many RTTY operators insist on actually FSK-ing their radios instead of using AFSK, even though it means they have to accurately tune in every signal instead of just clicking on a waterfall, which would surely be quicker. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , KH6TY kh6ty@ wrote: The hope was that PSK63 could replace RTTY, being both spectrally more efficient, and more usable for a panoramic presentation for contesters to see who is on the band, but it never came about. Too bad, I think, because it would help reduce congestion during contests. PSK63's overall time to complete an exchange is roughly equal to RTTY (twice as fast as PSK31), which is considered too slow for RTTY contesting, but I don't understand why it has not been adopted. I even wrote an article on PSK63 for the National Contest Journal, but there appeared to be little interest and few comments. 73 - Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] Content vs Mode Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Mode is not equivalent to emission type, Phone is not a mode. Phone is not an emission type. Content is what the emission contains or what is carried by the emission. Content can often be part of the emission type, but not always. Sub-bands are demarcated primarily by content, not substantially by mode or bandwidth. Bandwidth has very little to do with the demarcation of HF sub-bands. A mode, such as AM or FSK or FM can easily contain or carry voice or image or text or data as its content... even simultaneously! However, the FCC rules demarcate the sub-bands by content, so ye shalt not allow any text to be contained in your AM or FSK or FM mode transmission while in the phone/image sub-band (with few exceptions). Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: No, not by content, except for unallowed transmission of music, pornography, business communications, etc., there is no regulation by content. 73 - Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] 80M RS ID Usage..survey
Another survey of RS ID usage, this time on 80M. This was unattended monitoring, I suspect the RS IDs were not from numerous stations. 14 MT63-500-LG 13 BPSK250 4OLIVIA-8-500 2OLIVIA-4-500 1BPSK31 Ideally, it would be useful to know how may transmissions were made that did not involve RS-ID . so we can get a measure of the RS ID prevalence . It would be useful to also know the callsign of the station that used the RS-ID , but I am not sure if this is possible in Multipsk in SDR mode, or not. I may also not be realistic in my thought that there should be lots of non-PSK31/RTTY digital signals to listen to on any given day. This unscientific band survey might indicate that over a two period on 80M, there are only 3-4 stations active using non-RTTY/PSK31 modes (also excluding JT65A and ALE). Andy K3UK 05:41:56 UTC BPSK31 7.0221 M 05:07:55 UTC BPSK250 7.0280 M 04:56:49 UTC MT63-500-LG 7.0230 M 04:55:13 UTC MT63-500-LG 7.0230 M 04:52:00 UTC MT63-500-LG 7.0230 M 04:51:20 UTC MT63-500-LG 7.0230 M 04:50:24 UTC MT63-500-LG 7.0230 M 04:49:44 UTC MT63-500-LG 7.0230 M 04:47:12 UTC MT63-500-LG 7.0230 M 04:47:00 UTC BPSK250 7.0280 M 04:44:55 UTC MT63-500-LG 7.0230 M 04:42:23 UTC OLIVIA-4-5007.0230 M 04:41:52 UTC OLIVIA-4-5007.0230 M 04:39:56 UTC MT63-500-LG 7.0230 M 04:39:16 UTC MT63-500-LG 7.0230 M 04:38:20 UTC MT63-500-LG 7.0230 M 04:37:40 UTC MT63-500-LG 7.0230 M 04:36:44 UTC MT63-500-LG 7.0230 M 04:36:04 UTC MT63-500-LG 7.0230 M 04:14:08 UTC OLIVIA-8-5007.0240 M 04:09:24 UTC BPSK250 7.0280 M 04:03:07 UTC OLIVIA-8-5007.0240 M 04:02:14 UTC OLIVIA-8-5007.0240 M 03:46:36 UTC BPSK250 7.0280 M 03:40:45 UTC OLIVIA-8-5007.0240 M 03:35:22 UTC BPSK250 7.0280 M 03:34:52 UTC BPSK250 7.0280 M 03:34:43 UTC BPSK250 7.0280 M 03:33:24 UTC BPSK250 7.0280 M 03:31:49 UTC BPSK250 7.0280 M 03:06:53 UTC BPSK250 7.0280 M 03:06:38 UTC BPSK250 7.0280 M 03:06:24 UTC BPSK250 7.0280 M 02:57:33 UTC OLIVIA-8-5007.0240 M
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
Julian, By definition, it is SS if the pattern is independently generated from the data. The original intent of FHSS was to make third-party decoding impossible without knowledge of the code that generated the tones or carriers. FCC rules disallow encryption because we are required to police the bands ourselves. As long as there is not a pattern to the frequencies generated, that is independent of the data, one of the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as FHSS is missing. However, in the case of ROS, the repeated pattern is not there, so, until the regulations are changed, ROS is illegal FHSS, even though the spreading is limited and capable of third-party monitoring. That is a result of a historical attempt to prevent encryption, but this can probably be changed through the petition process with public comment. Until then, hams in the US have no choice but to abide by the regulations as written. In the author's own words, three necessary and sufficient elements make it SS, and a search of the literature says the same: 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. The operative phase here is independent of the data. It is just unfortunate that the FCC regulations, as currently written, do not allow ROS on HF and that they really need to be updated. Note that SS is already permittted above 222 MHz, where there is plenty of space to use for spreading that does not exist on HF. In fact, the encryption aspect is not even mentioned, except in other parts of the regulations disallowing encryption. The regulations were obviously written to prevent extremely wide SS signals from interfering with other users. Since ROS is no wider than a phone signal, there is no reason the regulations should not be modified to allow it (perhaps with other necessary limitations), but until then, and right now, ROS is illegal below 222 Mhz. It is that simple! Compare the repeated pattern of MFSK64 to the random pattern of ROS as data is applied. Substituting a 2- page technical description which is COMPLETELY different from the 7-page description of ROS as FHSS in an obvious attempt to circumvent FCC regulations is simply not believable, as an apparent twisting of the FCC's statement of illegality was apparently not true either. Which version is to be believed? Well, we don't need to decide that, and you apparently cannot believe anything the author claims since he keeps claiming something else! Anyone, including the FCC, can simply observe the differences in the spectral footprint of each, which is plainly shown here in a comparison of MFSK64 and ROS 1 baud at 2200 Hz width: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/compare.zip Note how the repetitive sending of data () does not result in any repetitive pattern on ROS, but it does in MFSK64, and MFSK64 idles with a repeated pattern, but ROS does not. The ROS tones are obviously not determined by the data and are also pseudo-randomly generated - definitely FHSS. The FCC regulations describe permitted and not permitted (i.e. SS and others) emissions. They could care less about what a mode is called or how it is described by someone, because in the final analysis, we are required to maintain our EMISSIONS per the regulations, or have the regulations changed through the petition and public comment process. Had the author not tried so hard to convince everyone that ROS was Spread Spectrum, this debate would probably never have occurred. It was the term, Spread Spectrum that raised red flags among US hams who are knowledgeable of the regulations we operate under, and they were right in realizing that, as a result, ROS is illegal on HF unless the regulations are changed. The FCC then confirmed that through the ARRL. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: Is the random or pseudo-random manner of generating the tones or carriers an essential element of spread-spectrum? If so, and if the aim of using such a method is not to obfuscate the message but only to provide better immunity to interference and path variations, would you be any worse off using a repeated pattern of tones instead of a pseudo-randomly generated one? And if you did that, would it still be spread-spectrum? Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: I can't fathom the reason for doing that, but if the tone frequencies are pseudo-randomly generated and then modulated by either on/off keying or some other way, you will have a spread spectrum system, similar to what is
[digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
Skip. Thank you for the comprehensive explanation. I understand why ROS is illegal under your rules. The point of my question was, if FHSS is illegal, why not simply modify the mode (which after all is experimental and does not have a large number of users) to use a non random way of generating the tones? Instead of rewriting the description to falsely claim ROS is not SS, why could he not have changed the mode so that it really was not SS? What does ROS gain by using SS over another mode that carries the same amount of data at the same speed using the same bandwidth and the same number of tones but uses an entirely predictable method of modulation? Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Julian, By definition, it is SS if the pattern is independently generated from the data. The original intent of FHSS was to make third-party decoding impossible without knowledge of the code that generated the tones or carriers. FCC rules disallow encryption because we are required to police the bands ourselves. As long as there is not a pattern to the frequencies generated, that is independent of the data, one of the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as FHSS is missing. However, in the case of ROS, the repeated pattern is not there, so, until the regulations are changed, ROS is illegal FHSS, even though the spreading is limited and capable of third-party monitoring. That is a result of a historical attempt to prevent encryption, but this can probably be changed through the petition process with public comment. Until then, hams in the US have no choice but to abide by the regulations as written. In the author's own words, three necessary and sufficient elements make it SS, and a search of the literature says the same: 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. The operative phase here is independent of the data.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
He did, I guess, when he added a 500Hz-wide mode. The footprint of that mode indicates it is probably FSK as he tried to claim for the 2200 Hz-wide mode. He says he submitted a technical description to the FCC but will not release it until he gets an OK. Don't know what to believe from him these days, though! A further problem is the the new mode is included under the ROS name, and the 2200Hz-wide mode still looks like spread spectrum, unchanged from earlier. So if the FCC approves ROS on the basis of the new 500 Hz-wide mode, operators may think the 2200Hz-wide mode is now legal also. Still not a good situation! 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: Skip. Thank you for the comprehensive explanation. I understand why ROS is illegal under your rules. The point of my question was, if FHSS is illegal, why not simply modify the mode (which after all is experimental and does not have a large number of users) to use a non random way of generating the tones? Instead of rewriting the description to falsely claim ROS is not SS, why could he not have changed the mode so that it really was not SS? What does ROS gain by using SS over another mode that carries the same amount of data at the same speed using the same bandwidth and the same number of tones but uses an entirely predictable method of modulation? Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Julian, By definition, it is SS if the pattern is independently generated from the data. The original intent of FHSS was to make third-party decoding impossible without knowledge of the code that generated the tones or carriers. FCC rules disallow encryption because we are required to police the bands ourselves. As long as there is not a pattern to the frequencies generated, that is independent of the data, one of the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as FHSS is missing. However, in the case of ROS, the repeated pattern is not there, so, until the regulations are changed, ROS is illegal FHSS, even though the spreading is limited and capable of third-party monitoring. That is a result of a historical attempt to prevent encryption, but this can probably be changed through the petition process with public comment. Until then, hams in the US have no choice but to abide by the regulations as written. In the author's own words, three necessary and sufficient elements make it SS, and a search of the literature says the same: 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. The operative phase here is independent of the data.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
El 10/03/2010 7:57, g4ilo escribió: What does ROS gain by using SS over another mode that carries the same amount of data at the same speed using the same bandwidth and the same number of tones but uses an entirely predictable method of modulation? Processing gain. Signals correlated with the hopping sequence add up, non correlated signals do not add up. It does not mean that SS is not a predictable modulation method, you just need to know the key, in the USA, the key must be one of a few specific codes, and if you don't have the key, security by obscurity applies. 73, Jose, CO2JA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
Jose, If you were going to design a mode that filled 2200 Hz, but did not use SS, and was as sensitive as possible in that bandwidth, how would you do it? It would have to be highly resistant to fast Doppler shift also, but minimum S/N would be the most important parameter, as it would be used at UHF. So far, Olivia 16-500 seems to be the best compromise between minimum S/N and Doppler shift survival at UHF. The more narrow Olivia modes, even though more sensitive, do not decode as well if there is noticeable fast Doppler shift, and sometimes, not at all. DominoEx is completely destroyed by the Doppler shift and MFSK16 is not tolerant enough to drift to be usable at UHF. MT63-2000 covers 2000 Hz, has highly redundant FEC, but the minimum S/N is only -2 dB, so that is not an alternative. What I am looking for is a mode that will copy under the visible and audible noise on UHF during deep fades, but survives fast Doppler shift. Olivia 16-500 makes it down to the noise, but not under, during deep fades. CW by ear is just slightly better than Olivia 16-500, and the note is very raspy sounding - much like Aurora communications. Another observation - most stations I copy on ROS 16 are reading a metric of -12 dB or greater. Only once have I copied a station (using 1 baud ROS) that was measuring a metric under -25 dB. Is the ROS metric supposed to correlate with the path S/N? I ask this because even the weakest ROS tones at 1 baud are still visible on the waterfall, whereas weak Olivia 32-1000 signals with a -12 dB minimum S/N stop decoding just about the time the tones become hard to see in the noise, but still can be heard faintly. It is a long way from even -25 dB S/N to -12 dB S/N, so I would expect if the metric is just another way to say S/N, I would not be able to see the tones, yet I can, and not only on the ROS waterfall, but on the DigiPan waterfall as well. 73 - Skip KH6TY Jose A. Amador wrote: El 10/03/2010 7:57, g4ilo escribió: What does ROS gain by using SS over another mode that carries the same amount of data at the same speed using the same bandwidth and the same number of tones but uses an entirely predictable method of modulation? Processing gain. Signals correlated with the hopping sequence add up, non correlated signals do not add up. It does not mean that SS is not a predictable modulation method, you just need to know the key, in the USA, the key must be one of a few specific codes, and if you don't have the key, security by obscurity applies. 73, Jose, CO2JA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
El 10/03/2010 10:51, KH6TY escribió: Jose, If you were going to design a mode that filled 2200 Hz, but did not use SS, and was as sensitive as possible in that bandwidth, how would you do it? Tough question. I believe that on HF the best solution so far is Pactor-III It would have to be highly resistant to fast Doppler shift also, but minimum S/N would be the most important parameter, as it would be used at UHF. So far, Olivia 16-500 seems to be the best compromise between minimum S/N and Doppler shift survival at UHF. The more narrow Olivia modes, even though more sensitive, do not decode as well if there is noticeable fast Doppler shift, and sometimes, not at all. As you add more tones the bin width reduces. The only hope I see is using wide bins to accomodate Doppler, and perhaps, more tones, but that is not possible with 3 kHz radios. Perhaps it is a task for some SDR. I believe wider modes are not a problem in UHF. It may take more CPU power, and higher powered radios for simultaneous tones. DominoEx is completely destroyed by the Doppler shift Doppler is parasitic noise to DominoEx... and MFSK16 is not tolerant enough to drift to be usable at UHF. MT63-2000 covers 2000 Hz, has highly redundant FEC, but the minimum S/N is only -2 dB, so that is not an alternative. Both seem to have been designed for HF, and MT63 seems to require a single ray dominant path. At times it works well, but I have not had luck with MT63, overall. MT63 has many carriers and narrow bins, not good for multipath with doppler. What I am looking for is a mode that will copy under the visible and audible noise on UHF during deep fades, but survives fast Doppler shift. Olivia 16-500 makes it down to the noise, but not under, during deep fades. CW by ear is just slightly better than Olivia 16-500, and the note is very raspy sounding - much like Aurora communications. But CW requires well trained operators... There is a paper by Tim Giles about multitone modems for high latitude HF paths (PhD publication in Sweden) and he avoided sending in contiguous bins in wide Doppler spread conditions, and reassigned contiguous bins on the side to have a wider hat to catch the path shifted tones. That sacrifices thruput, but nevertheless, it is worthless to push nature. In that case, it is better to become its ally, and to me, wider spaced tones and reusing contiguous bins seems a good idea. I read it a long time ago and maybe I am not remembering all details, but it was interesting enough so I haven't lost the big picture. The 3 kHz channel limit on HF is a straitjacket that might be avoided on VHF - UHF if clear frequencies are available and you need speed. Another observation - most stations I copy on ROS 16 are reading a metric of -12 dB or greater. Only once have I copied a station (using 1 baud ROS) that was measuring a metric under -25 dB. Is the ROS metric supposed to correlate with the path S/N? I ask this because even the weakest ROS tones at 1 baud are still visible on the waterfall, whereas weak Olivia 32-1000 signals with a -12 dB minimum S/N stop decoding just about the time the tones become hard to see in the noise, but still can be heard faintly. It is a long way from even -25 dB S/N to -12 dB S/N, so I would expect if the metric is just another way to say S/N, I would not be able to see the tones, yet I can, and not only on the ROS waterfall, but on the DigiPan waterfall as well. I really don't know what does METRIC mean in the ROS case, Skip. I really did not pay much attention to it, as most times there was packet or pactor QRM, being ROS so wide. What caught my attention is how bad it performs under QRM, having seen Olivia 500-16 under similar conditions unaffected. I believe I know the reasons, as you may as well know, but won't elaborate further about it on this list. 73, Jose, CO2JA
[digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador ama...@... wrote: El 10/03/2010 7:57, g4ilo escribió: What does ROS gain by using SS over another mode that carries the same amount of data at the same speed using the same bandwidth and the same number of tones but uses an entirely predictable method of modulation? Processing gain. Signals correlated with the hopping sequence add up, non correlated signals do not add up. It does not mean that SS is not a predictable modulation method, you just need to know the key, in the USA, the key must be one of a few specific codes, and if you don't have the key, security by obscurity applies. 73, Jose, CO2JA security by obscurity applies Oh gosh , the Bells the Bell's egor ... this is quite amazing , a sort of Concorde moment , but this baby don't make loud sonic boom's ..Eg from a time forgot :- ''When the US ban on JFK Concorde operations was lifted in February 1977, New York banned Concorde locally. The ban came to an end on 17 October 1977 when the Supreme Court of the United States declined to overturn a lower court's ruling rejecting the Port Authority's efforts to continue the ban (The noise report noted that Air Force One, at the time a Boeing 707, was louder than Concorde)'' Yes if the key gen is secret, then its a security hazard but as its not and everyone uses the same thing .. even the Bell-ringers can download it and dis assemble it .. may be the problem is not in the '''Source Code''' .. but perhaps in the ''Source of the Code'' .. may be he could rename it H2S ? G ..
RE: [digitalradio] Higher Data Rates - MIL-ST-188-110C
Off the top of my head - you'll be needing a SDR transceiver for that mode Sir? Simon Brown, HB9DRV http://sdr-radio.com -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Trevor . 3 kHz Bandwidth - 16000 bits per second 24 kHz Bandwidth - 12 bits per second
[digitalradio] SS definitions
I'll preface this by saying that I'm not trying to defend or crucify ROS. But when we are dealing with definitions the FCC, it's very important we be clear accurate on our definitions. KH6TY wrote: By definition, it is SS if the pattern is independently generated from the data. One test, but not the only test The original intent of FHSS was to make third-party decoding impossible without knowledge of the code that generated the tones or carriers. True, emphasis on original intent. There are many, many SS implementations usages that are not done to prevent third party decoding. It's actually a very good way to share spectrum with dissimilar usages. And nearly all FHSS can be easily decoded independent of knowing the code now unless the data itself is highly encrypted. FCC rules disallow encryption because we are required to police the bands ourselves. As long as there is not a pattern to the frequencies generated, that is independent of the data, one of the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as FHSS is missing. This is overly simplistic. I have first hand experience with FCC dealings with regard to code generators used for randomization of amateur digital signals. All that is required is to make available upon demand the code sequence. You don't have to offer a decoder, nor do OO's have to be able to monitor it, etc. Just make the code sequence available upon request. However, in the case of ROS, the repeated pattern is not there, so, until the regulations are changed, ROS is illegal FHSS, even though the spreading is limited and capable of third-party monitoring. Sorry, this is overly simplistic. Many US legal codec/modems do not meet this test. ROS may or may not be legal, but it's not your repeated test definition that makes it so. The most legit issue that technically makes it SS is that a single data bit is sliced into smaller bits when sent. IE: the code rate is much greater than the data rate. (which directly correlates with spreading factor as well). That is a result of a historical attempt to prevent encryption, but this can probably be changed through the petition process with public comment. Until then, hams in the US have no choice but to abide by the regulations as written. First hand experience: It does not take petition with public comment. Just professional dialog with the FCC, and a willingness to provide details on the encoding sequence if requested. In the author's own words, three necessary and sufficient elements make it SS, and a search of the literature says the same: 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. This is close to, but not exactly the ITU (and thus US Federal) definition of SS. But I agree with you, ROS by the author's description met the legal definition of SS. But the real question is, should it be treated the same as traditional SS which normally uses a much larger (100x or more) spreading factor and thus would negatively impact an entire HF amateur allocation. The operative phase here is independent of the data. So how bout randomizers used to maximize average power? (used reduce crest factor). Viterbi encoders? It is just unfortunate that the FCC regulations, as currently written, do not allow ROS on HF and that they really need to be updated. Note that SS is already permittted above 222 MHz, where there is plenty of space to use for spreading that does not exist on HF. In fact, the encryption aspect is not even mentioned, except in other parts of the regulations disallowing encryption. The regulations were obviously written to prevent extremely wide SS signals from interfering with other users. Since ROS is no wider than a phone signal, there is no reason the regulations should not be modified to allow it (perhaps with other necessary limitations), but until then, and right now, ROS is illegal below 222 Mhz. It is that simple! Compare the repeated pattern of MFSK64 to the random pattern of ROS as data is applied. Invalid test. Do the same with P3 with compression turned on. I understand what you are trying to do, and agree with some points. But also see a very simplistic approach to SS tests that will ultimately do us a dis-service. Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
Jose A. Amador wrote: It does not mean that SS is not a predictable modulation method, you just need to know the key, in the USA, the key must be one of a few specific codes, and if you don't have the key, security by obscurity applies. And the FCC does not consider a code used to create modulation patterns as encryption as long as that code is available for review upon demand. Not the program code itself, but the algorithm. I have stashed away somewhere a copy of the document used for that exact exercise in the mid-80's with the FCC. This could be a convolutional code as used in several modems, or a randomizer, or even one to improve decoding (viterbi). Another example: One of the gripes about P3 is that it is difficult to monitor. But that does not make it illegal, as the code algorythm has been published. Not the trade secret codecs themselves, just the method. And that's all that's required. Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] SS definitions
Alan, though we may disagree as to the amount or nature of FHSS in ROS, the bottom line is that the FCC engineers, as well as the ARRL engineers, reviewed both the documentation and the signal footprint, and have concluded it is FHSS. While their opinion might be changed through dialog, that is unlikely at this point, so the most sure approach is just to agree it is FHSS and petition for a variance with necessary limitations. It is highly unlikely that the FCC will reverse their decision, especially since the author, whom the FCC expected to tell the truth, wrote a 9-page paper claiming it was FHSS, titles, INTRODUCTION TO ROS: THE SPREAD SPECTRUM. To try to re-characterize it as something else in order to get approval puts the credibility of the author in serious doubt, especially after the fiasco over the posting of an FCC announcement that it was legal that the FCC claims they did not make. Admit it is FHSS, but petition for a variance or modification of the rules to allow it on the basis that it is not harmful to other modes, and that will probably be granted. It is too late, and too much dirty water has passed under the bridge, to even imagine that any other way can be successful. I think we have beat this horse to death at this point and should move on to another topic. 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: I'll preface this by saying that I'm not trying to defend or crucify ROS. But when we are dealing with definitions the FCC, it's very important we be clear accurate on our definitions. KH6TY wrote: By definition, it is SS if the pattern is independently generated from the data. One test, but not the only test The original intent of FHSS was to make third-party decoding impossible without knowledge of the code that generated the tones or carriers. True, emphasis on original intent. There are many, many SS implementations usages that are not done to prevent third party decoding. It's actually a very good way to share spectrum with dissimilar usages. And nearly all FHSS can be easily decoded independent of knowing the code now unless the data itself is highly encrypted. FCC rules disallow encryption because we are required to police the bands ourselves. As long as there is not a pattern to the frequencies generated, that is independent of the data, one of the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as FHSS is missing. This is overly simplistic. I have first hand experience with FCC dealings with regard to code generators used for randomization of amateur digital signals. All that is required is to make available upon demand the code sequence. You don't have to offer a decoder, nor do OO's have to be able to monitor it, etc. Just make the code sequence available upon request. However, in the case of ROS, the repeated pattern is not there, so, until the regulations are changed, ROS is illegal FHSS, even though the spreading is limited and capable of third-party monitoring. Sorry, this is overly simplistic. Many US legal codec/modems do not meet this test. ROS may or may not be legal, but it's not your repeated test definition that makes it so. The most legit issue that technically makes it SS is that a single data bit is sliced into smaller bits when sent. IE: the code rate is much greater than the data rate. (which directly correlates with spreading factor as well). That is a result of a historical attempt to prevent encryption, but this can probably be changed through the petition process with public comment. Until then, hams in the US have no choice but to abide by the regulations as written. First hand experience: It does not take petition with public comment. Just professional dialog with the FCC, and a willingness to provide details on the encoding sequence if requested. In the author's own words, three necessary and sufficient elements make it SS, and a search of the literature says the same: 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. This is close to, but not exactly the ITU (and thus US Federal) definition of SS. But I agree with you, ROS by the author's description met the legal definition of SS. But the real question is, should it be treated the same as traditional SS which normally uses a much larger (100x or more) spreading factor and thus would negatively impact an entire HF amateur allocation. The operative phase here is independent of the data. So how bout randomizers used to maximize average power? (used reduce crest factor). Viterbi encoders? It is just unfortunate that the FCC regulations, as currently written,
Re: [digitalradio] SS definitions
--- On Wed, 10/3/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: Alan, though we may disagree as to the amount or nature of FHSS in ROS, the bottom line is that the FCC engineers, as well as the ARRL engineers, reviewed both the documentation and the signal footprint, and have concluded it is FHSS. Who are these FCC Engineers ? All we've has is a response from someone that may be assumed to be an office clerk who simply quoted back the words in Part 97. 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: [digitalradio] SS definitions
Engineers that work for the FCC, of course. Their names are not ordinarily revealed and the mouthpiece of the FCC is a customer service agent (and for some amateur matters, the ARRL, who relays information from the FCC offices). This structure should be fairly obvious to anyone with experience in business. Trevor, Ask Toyota for the names of the engineers investigating the unexpected acceleration and I doubt that you will get an answer! Ask the President who is responsible for reports from the White House and you will only find out through a legal action. I am sure these walls are set up to protect employees from frivolous attacks. However, there is a Freedom of Information Act that can be invoked through legal action to obtain some internal documents of the government, but they are generally not offered to the public without a court order, for obvious reasons. The FCC customer service agent is the person who relays decisions to the public, and that agent probably does not make the decisions personally or without consultation. This is analogous to the Press Secretary of the White House. If you want to verify the originator of a decision, you have a right to do so through the appropriate legal process. The FCC's customer service agent has relayed a FCC decision to reaffirm that ROS is indeed FHSS and that, under current rules, as docemented in Part 97, SS is only allowed above 222 MHz. That is generally the way it works on this side of the pond, and we have no choice but to abide by the system or petition for change. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: --- On Wed, 10/3/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net wrote: Alan, though we may disagree as to the amount or nature of FHSS in ROS, the bottom line is that the FCC engineers, as well as the ARRL engineers, reviewed both the documentation and the signal footprint, and have concluded it is FHSS. Who are these FCC Engineers ? All we've has is a response from someone that may be assumed to be an office clerk who simply quoted back the words in Part 97. 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: [digitalradio] SS definitions
Trevor, I might add that it is often the practice in this country for a higher court just to either reaffirm or remand a lower court decision, instead of issuing a differing decision itself. I am sure that the FCC, as a government body, also adheres to this practice. That is why the original decision of the FCC, as originally related by the customer service agent, simply reaffirms the original finding. The official word from the FCC, through one of their spokesmen, is that ROS is spread spectrum and that will stand until modified by the petition process. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: --- On Wed, 10/3/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net wrote: Alan, though we may disagree as to the amount or nature of FHSS in ROS, the bottom line is that the FCC engineers, as well as the ARRL engineers, reviewed both the documentation and the signal footprint, and have concluded it is FHSS. Who are these FCC Engineers ? All we've has is a response from someone that may be assumed to be an office clerk who simply quoted back the words in Part 97. 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: [digitalradio] SS definitions (here are the ITU, NITA, and Fed Std)
KH6TY wrote: Alan, though we may disagree as to the amount or nature of FHSS in ROS, Actually, I think we agree, just for different reasons. I really don't care about ROS. But do care about dangerous precedents. :-) the bottom line is that the FCC engineers, as well as the ARRL engineers, reviewed both the documentation and the signal footprint, and have concluded it is FHSS. I think we all agree it's a micro form of FHSS. I'm not sure I agree the FCC engineers have ruled. If Bill Cross or similar commented, that'd be definitive. But the ARRL interpretation of the FCC dialog still is pretty ambiguous. Lot's of the author stated and each operator has to Compare it with the ruling on Pactor 3 when challenged on a similar crusade. That's clear unambiguous, it was not FDM, even though it could be construed as such on a micro scale. And that crusade had similar arguments mis-statements. While their opinion might be changed through dialog, that is unlikely at this point, so the most sure approach is just to agree it is FHSS and petition for a variance with necessary limitations. Again, I think the real area to petition is not about ROS itself. That has been so badly handled from all sides it's probably tainted. And to be clear: Amateur radio was the net loser. The real issue is around applying macro definitions (like ITU SS, traditionally broadband, wide spreading factor) to a micro (SSB, non broadband) implementation like ROS. Put another way, what would an HF optimized SS mode do that other modes do not? What would be the negative? And factor in the potential (done right) of improved interoperation with other modes, signal processing gain, etc. And potential channel sharing (concurrent users). I think we have beat this horse to death at this point and should move on to another topic. Well, that would be great, except you keep refering to the must have idle tones like my grand-dad's rtty test. Again, I don't really care about ROS. This dialog is about the idea of using carrier patterns at idle or steady zero's/ones (like ancient RTTY) as a test for SS. That's just not it. We *are* allowed to encode data in a pseudo-random pattern, as long as the other SS tests are not triggered. Instead of concocting our own definitions, let's refer to the standards. ITU, which is referenced by NTIA, which is referenced by Fed Std, which is also reference by some FCC commercial definitions. It's the closest we have and is attached below. What's still not 100% is whether a SSB signal with a fixed dial frequency (and implied fixed carrier frequency) would be considered SS just because the audio sent changed in a SS fashion. It's back to is FSK AFSK the same mode, or just happen to look the same. Which is becoming tiresome, and makes me think reminisce about the traditional anti new mode (PSK, Pactor, ALE, whatever) crusades. :-) Remember, PSK was going to ruin the world as well. So was SSB in it's day! Have fun, Alan km4ba Here are the ITU definitions. Note the spreading factor definitions, etc: *Term* : spread spectrum (SS) system *Definition* : System in which the average energy of the transmitted signal is spread over a bandwidth which is much wider than the information bandwidth (the bandwidth of the transmitted signal is wider than the information bandwidth by at least a factor of two for double sideband AM and typically a factor of four or greater for narrow-band FM, and 100 to 1 for a linear SS system). *Term* : Direct sequence (DS) spread spectrum *Definition* : signal structuring technique utilizing a digital code spreading sequence having a chip rate 1/Tsin much higher than the information signal bit rate 1/Ts. Each information bit of the digital signal is transmitted as a pseudo-random sequence of chips, which produces a broad noise-like spectrum with a bandwidth (distance between first nulls) of 2 Bsin ? 2/Tsin. The receiver correlates the RF input signal with a local copy of the spreading sequence to recover the narrow-band data information at a rate 1/Ts. ***Term* : Frequency-hopping (FH) spread spectrum *Definition* : signal structuring technique employing automatic switching of the transmitted frequency. Selection of the frequency to be transmitted is typically made in a pseudo-random manner from a set of frequencies covering a band wider than the information bandwidth. The intended receiver frequency-hops in synchronization with the transmitter in order to retrieve the desired information. Here's the NTIA redbook definitions, which is also reference in Fed-Std 1037c: Spread Spectrum: A signal structuring technique that employs direct sequence, frequency hopping or a hybrid of these, which can be used for multiple access and/or multiple functions. This technique decreases the potential interference to other receivers while achieving privacy and increasing the immunity of spread spectrum receivers to noise and interference. Spread spectrum generally makes use of a
RE: [digitalradio] SS definitions
8P9RY comments below From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Trevor . Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 3:21 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SS definitions --- On Wed, 10/3/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net wrote: Alan, though we may disagree as to the amount or nature of FHSS in ROS, the bottom line is that the FCC engineers, as well as the ARRL engineers, reviewed both the documentation and the signal footprint, and have concluded it is FHSS. Who are these FCC Engineers ? All we've has is a response from someone that may be assumed to be an office clerk who simply quoted back the words in Part 97. What a convenient assumption. Have you spoken with the agent in question, assessed her technical skills, and inquired as to what effort went into the response she conveyed? 73, Dave, 8P9RY
Re: [digitalradio] SS definitions (here are the ITU, NITA, and Fed Std)
Alan, please carry on the debate with someone else. I have spent a huge amount of time on this issue, trying to help in whatever way I can, although I do not have all the answers, obviously. I need to do something other than sit in front of this computer all day! Have fun, 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: KH6TY wrote: Alan, though we may disagree as to the amount or nature of FHSS in ROS, Actually, I think we agree, just for different reasons. I really don't care about ROS. But do care about dangerous precedents. :-) the bottom line is that the FCC engineers, as well as the ARRL engineers, reviewed both the documentation and the signal footprint, and have concluded it is FHSS. I think we all agree it's a micro form of FHSS. I'm not sure I agree the FCC engineers have ruled. If Bill Cross or similar commented, that'd be definitive. But the ARRL interpretation of the FCC dialog still is pretty ambiguous. Lot's of the author stated and each operator has to Compare it with the ruling on Pactor 3 when challenged on a similar crusade. That's clear unambiguous, it was not FDM, even though it could be construed as such on a micro scale. And that crusade had similar arguments mis-statements. While their opinion might be changed through dialog, that is unlikely at this point, so the most sure approach is just to agree it is FHSS and petition for a variance with necessary limitations. Again, I think the real area to petition is not about ROS itself. That has been so badly handled from all sides it's probably tainted. And to be clear: Amateur radio was the net loser. The real issue is around applying macro definitions (like ITU SS, traditionally broadband, wide spreading factor) to a micro (SSB, non broadband) implementation like ROS. Put another way, what would an HF optimized SS mode do that other modes do not? What would be the negative? And factor in the potential (done right) of improved interoperation with other modes, signal processing gain, etc. And potential channel sharing (concurrent users). I think we have beat this horse to death at this point and should move on to another topic. Well, that would be great, except you keep refering to the must have idle tones like my grand-dad's rtty test. Again, I don't really care about ROS. This dialog is about the idea of using carrier patterns at idle or steady zero's/ones (like ancient RTTY) as a test for SS. That's just not it. We *are* allowed to encode data in a pseudo-random pattern, as long as the other SS tests are not triggered. Instead of concocting our own definitions, let's refer to the standards. ITU, which is referenced by NTIA, which is referenced by Fed Std, which is also reference by some FCC commercial definitions. It's the closest we have and is attached below. What's still not 100% is whether a SSB signal with a fixed dial frequency (and implied fixed carrier frequency) would be considered SS just because the audio sent changed in a SS fashion. It's back to is FSK AFSK the same mode, or just happen to look the same. Which is becoming tiresome, and makes me think reminisce about the traditional anti new mode (PSK, Pactor, ALE, whatever) crusades. :-) Remember, PSK was going to ruin the world as well. So was SSB in it's day! Have fun, Alan km4ba Here are the ITU definitions. Note the spreading factor definitions, etc: *Term* : spread spectrum (SS) system *Definition* : System in which the average energy of the transmitted signal is spread over a bandwidth which is much wider than the information bandwidth (the bandwidth of the transmitted signal is wider than the information bandwidth by at least a factor of two for double sideband AM and typically a factor of four or greater for narrow-band FM, and 100 to 1 for a linear SS system). *Term* : Direct sequence (DS) spread spectrum *Definition* : signal structuring technique utilizing a digital code spreading sequence having a chip rate 1/Tsin much higher than the information signal bit rate 1/Ts. Each information bit of the digital signal is transmitted as a pseudo-random sequence of chips, which produces a broad noise-like spectrum with a bandwidth (distance between first nulls) of 2 Bsin ? 2/Tsin. The receiver correlates the RF input signal with a local copy of the spreading sequence to recover the narrow-band data information at a rate 1/Ts. ***Term* : Frequency-hopping (FH) spread spectrum *Definition* : signal structuring technique employing automatic switching of the transmitted frequency. Selection of the frequency to be transmitted is typically made in a pseudo-random manner from a set of frequencies covering a band wider than the information bandwidth. The intended receiver frequency-hops in synchronization with the transmitter in order to retrieve the desired information. Here's the NTIA redbook definitions, which is also reference in Fed-Std 1037c: Spread Spectrum: A signal structuring technique that employs direct sequence, frequency
[digitalradio] Re: SS definitions (here are the ITU, NITA, and Fed Std)
Well ROS is going to ruin digital operation if it catches on. It has already ruined Olivia on 20m. Just one transmission using this selfish wideband mode wipes out three frequencies that were used by Olivia. It is causing interference to packet networks as well. And, if the number of members of the ROS Yahoo group is anything to go by, there are currently only around 124 users. That's a lot of disruption being caused by very few people. I don't care whether it is spread spectrum or not. You cannot accommodate a reasonable number of users each requiring a 2.2kHz clear channel within the current allocation for digital modes. That is the only reason for my objection to it. I do not see the point in experimenting with a mode that requires more spectrum space than exists to accommodate the expected number of users. If it is a success, and everyone wants to use it, then there will not be enough frequencies for them and it will be chaos. So we all have to hope it is a failure, otherwise it will be impossible for any of us to use anything else, except possibly PSK31 which uses little enough space that hopefully the ROSers can be persuaded to keep clear of it. I am not against new modes but surely they should be developed taking account of the circumstances that they will be used under. It doesn't seem too likely to me that someone who was an experienced HF digital operator would consider developing a mode for HF use that required a 2.2kHz channel because they would understand that it isn't practical. It really doesn't matter what the possible benefits are if it is impossible for more than a handful of people to use it. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Barrow ml9...@... wrote: Which is becoming tiresome, and makes me think reminisce about the traditional anti new mode (PSK, Pactor, ALE, whatever) crusades. :-) Remember, PSK was going to ruin the world as well. So was SSB in it's day!
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
- Original Message From: rein...@ix.netcom.com rein...@ix.netcom.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 11:51:52 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts Hi Ralph, You got me again. Indeed the Commission requires that it has to be intelligent information, and certainly any ID needs to be made in the English language or in Morse code, not quite sure about Morse only, or other methods allowed. One could speak as a member of an Indian tribe as was done in WWII as long as the the ID was in English, Germans and Japanese had a lot of trouble with that sort of communication, would that make it perhaps SS if it was done on the wireless? If I listen to smears of rattle, many Khz wide below 14.001 or so ,most of the time one can hear at the end an Id in CW. When I run WSJT, I ID in CW every couple of minutes. Lets say, it were a number of tones, no particular order looks like it, but I could down load a piece of nice freeware from the internet and it all became intelligent info what then? 73 Rein W6SZ. * The content of the signals and the modulation of the signals are getting confused. The tones you are sending out must conform to some type of acceptabel modulation. The content does not even have to make sense. Some examples are , you can not transmitt music, but you can send ascii characters. If music is converted into ascii data or just a bunch of 1's and 0's and sent and then reconverted at the receiving end , you have just sent data as far as the FCC sees it. In reality you have sent a music file , but not music. It will become music when the computer converts the data file back to music. Another example is a RTTY picuture or ascii art. This looks like a random ammount of numbers and letters. If you step back and look at the paper comming off a real teletype machine, you have a picture. I have sent many of the rtty pix in years past.
[digitalradio] RECOMPENSE DE LA FONDATION MELINDA
Bonjour, Nous avons le plaisir de vous annoncez que vous êtes l'un des heureux gagnants de la Fondation Melinda. Les résultats ont été libérés et vous fait bénéficier de 85.000,00€. Nous vous recommandons de fournir au Cabinet Robert DOSSOU les informations telles que : Nom - Prénom - Date de naissance - Profession - Téléphone (fixe) - Téléphone (mobile) - Émail - Ville - Pays par email à l'adresse dos...@btinternet.com Merci de vite faire diligence
Re: [digitalradio] RECOMPENSE DE LA FONDATION MELINDA
oops, sorry...I press approve rather than delete on this moderated spam. Andy K3Uk 2010/3/10 morgane d morgane-d-bij...@orange.fr Bonjour, Nous avons le plaisir de vous annoncez que vous êtes l'un des heureux gagnants de la Fondation Melinda. Les résultats ont été libérés et vous fait bénéficier de 85.000,00€. Nous vous recommandons de fournir au Cabinet Robert DOSSOU les informations telles que : Nom - Prénom - Date de naissance - Profession - Téléphone (fixe) - Téléphone (mobile) - Émail - Ville - Pays par email à l'adresse dos...@btinternet.com Merci de vite faire diligence
