[digitalradio] Possible meeting with ROS author next weekend: questions?
Hi all, It is possible that I meet with ROS author in a local amateur radio event (EA-QRP annual meeting) in Sinarcas (Valencia, Spain) on next Saturday. I have thought that, if someone has specific technical questions for him, I could translate them to him and would report his comments later here. I am sorry not being able right now to confirm that the meeting will happen but will do my best. Best regards, JOSE -- 73 EB5AGV - JOSE V. GAVILA - IM99sm La Canyada - Valencia(SPAIN) Vintage Radio and Test Equipment... http://jvgavila.com RadioRepair BLOG... http://radiorepair.blogspot.com
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Rein Really don't know what to say at this point. Still trying to understand why my call was added to the list of calls not able to use the ROS program. But since Jose will not say I'll just move on to things other then ROS. But I'm not the only one that this has happen to. No big deal I have gotten over it long ago. Now I'm just guessing but I think he may have misunderstood something I may have said in a post. Really not sure for the reason but since he is not talking about it I guess anyone of us that have been banned from using the program will never know. It all started when he posted a update to his program and then I found out that I could no longer us it. Like others. But I still have one of the first versions on a memory stick that I could use on the other computer if needed. Seems he is the *only* one that's knows and at this time is not saying. So be it - I got over it long ago. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Hello John, At the risk of being banned for live from this list readers might and I am interested in the details of this situation. I got the impression from your message that you had some contacts with Mr ROS on facebook/twitter? Now, I seems you are saying that you are banned/prevented from using ROS software! Are you sure it is not an installation problem of some kind? Mr, ROS had on web site yesterday I believe, a note about hour H and the day D that things were going to happen, with the users of ROS, their computer(s), the functionality of the program? It seems MR Ros has distributed actions in earlier released versions and that these will be activated at H and D. BTW, seriously John, I am not making this up. Not only that, have been warned about this sort of actions in the past by respected Mature radio amateurs, off the list. And would not believe it! You can also contact me of the list or you and others, interested in ROS questions, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rosmodemusa/?yguid=1448749 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net Sent: Jun 2, 2010 3:25 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Rein Really don't know what to say at this point. Still trying to understand why my call was added to the list of calls not able to use the ROS program. But since Jose will not say I'll just move on to things other then ROS. But I'm not the only one that this has happen to. No big deal I have gotten over it long ago. Now I'm just guessing but I think he may have misunderstood something I may have said in a post. Really not sure for the reason but since he is not talking about it I guess anyone of us that have been banned from using the program will never know. It all started when he posted a update to his program and then I found out that I could no longer us it. Like others. But I still have one of the first versions on a memory stick that I could use on the other computer if needed. Seems he is the *only* one that's knows and at this time is not saying. So be it - I got over it long ago. John, W0JAB http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Hi Rein let's forget about this Mr. Ros without manners and his new a Yahoo list. There is a lot of decent programmers out there, making excellent HAM software. Mr. Ros is not worth the attention he and he's frequency-hopping spread spectrum software is getting. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 02.06.2010 01:38, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Hello John, Please tell me what do you mean? Yahoo list(s)? It is very easy to get of a Yahoo list. ( I think and hope. ) Have changed the some 25 lists I am on often, delivery format etc. Also have never experienced this dictatorial action on a Yahoo List so far. As far as Mr. Ros is concerned there was a time not long ago, that I tried to defend him, Thought, he was misunderstood even when attacking good decent amateurs. Thought it was the language. Offered to skype with him. English is not my native Language. I have a flexible EU English skill and under stand English with a French, Swedish, German, Dutch, accent, you name it no problem. Others did warn me, but the idiot I am, did not believe them. So developed a pretty strong skin by now. Where did this happen Facebook? Well you ask Mr. Ros a question he does not like or gets to close to the bone, you get it. Verbal, lawyers, Interpol I was warned by a very nice Cuban professor, I don't know on what terms he is or was with Mr. Fidel Castro, before he stepped down. This professor speaks Spanish probably a few more languages and very good English, I do not, unfortunately, but that might have been the reason for me to be that slow in understanding all this. Right from the beginning, I warned Mr Ros about the IARU beacons on 14.100 kHz. Reason for the first conflict situations with Mr ROS. Long before the many of the present ROS users were aware of Mr. ROS A Mr. Ros has no manners whatever. B Mr. Ros has not even the most basic skills of dealing with people. C Mr. Ros has no idea, what amateur radio is ( no big deal really ) D Mr. Ros might not be straight with the users of his program. The way Mr. Ros behaves indicates to me that he has other interests than providing a program, being it very nice, free to the amateur radio community. Users might not care about that angle, I do not either as a matter of fact but I think it might explain things. Without a doubt we all will get to learn this over time. I have been trying to help us ( US amateurs ) in using ROS Modem. If Mr ROS had any concern in this regard, he would fix the problem and write a paper that we could present to our licensing agency. Mr ROS woud have trouble talking to that agency. Telling us that he had been in touch with that agency Thanks for your comments and nice words, John. I know it is so boring and OT. ( And Dave (G0DJA ) is your spam bin sufficient empty ) 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net Sent: Jun 1, 2010 6:51 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Rein Don't take it personal. For some reason even I got on his bad list. I did ask but never got an answer. Not sure but I think someone has been feeding bad info to him. Think he was told that I has said something that I really did not or it was misunderstood. John, W0JAB http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Dear Steinar, Very true. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no Sent: Jun 2, 2010 4:15 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hi Rein let's forget about this Mr. Ros without manners and his new a Yahoo list. There is a lot of decent programmers out there, making excellent HAM software. Mr. Ros is not worth the attention he and he's frequency-hopping spread spectrum software is getting. 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 02.06.2010 01:38, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Hello John, Please tell me what do you mean? Yahoo list(s)? It is very easy to get of a Yahoo list. ( I think and hope. ) Have changed the some 25 lists I am on often, delivery format etc. Also have never experienced this dictatorial action on a Yahoo List so far. As far as Mr. Ros is concerned there was a time not long ago, that I tried to defend him, Thought, he was misunderstood even when attacking good decent amateurs. Thought it was the language. Offered to skype with him. English is not my native Language. I have a flexible EU English skill and under stand English with a French, Swedish, German, Dutch, accent, you name it no problem. Others did warn me, but the idiot I am, did not believe them. So developed a pretty strong skin by now. Where did this happen Facebook? Well you ask Mr. Ros a question he does not like or gets to close to the bone, you get it. Verbal, lawyers, Interpol I was warned by a very nice Cuban professor, I don't know on what terms he is or was with Mr. Fidel Castro, before he stepped down. This professor speaks Spanish probably a few more languages and very good English, I do not, unfortunately, but that might have been the reason for me to be that slow in understanding all this. Right from the beginning, I warned Mr Ros about the IARU beacons on 14.100 kHz. Reason for the first conflict situations with Mr ROS. Long before the many of the present ROS users were aware of Mr. ROS A Mr. Ros has no manners whatever. B Mr. Ros has not even the most basic skills of dealing with people. C Mr. Ros has no idea, what amateur radio is ( no big deal really ) D Mr. Ros might not be straight with the users of his program. The way Mr. Ros behaves indicates to me that he has other interests than providing a program, being it very nice, free to the amateur radio community. Users might not care about that angle, I do not either as a matter of fact but I think it might explain things. Without a doubt we all will get to learn this over time. I have been trying to help us ( US amateurs ) in using ROS Modem. If Mr ROS had any concern in this regard, he would fix the problem and write a paper that we could present to our licensing agency. Mr ROS woud have trouble talking to that agency. Telling us that he had been in touch with that agency Thanks for your comments and nice words, John. I know it is so boring and OT. ( And Dave (G0DJA ) is your spam bin sufficient empty ) 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net Sent: Jun 1, 2010 6:51 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Rein Don't take it personal. For some reason even I got on his bad list. I did ask but never got an answer. Not sure but I think someone has been feeding bad info to him. Think he was told that I has said something that I really did not or it was misunderstood. John, W0JAB http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Hello John, If your situation is not due to an installation problem or other, but is part of the distributed software, planned, programmed in, it might well have other consequences. ROS modem is under consideration to be incorporated in other amateur radio digital packages. Think about that angle. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB w0...@... wrote: Rein Really don't know what to say at this point. Still trying to understand why my call was added to the list of calls not able to use the ROS program. But since Jose will not say I'll just move on to things other then ROS. But I'm not the only one that this has happen to. No big deal I have gotten over it long ago. Now I'm just guessing but I think he may have misunderstood something I may have said in a post. Really not sure for the reason but since he is not talking about it I guess anyone of us that have been banned from using the program will never know. It all started when he posted a update to his program and then I found out that I could no longer us it. Like others. But I still have one of the first versions on a memory stick that I could use on the other computer if needed. Seems he is the *only* one that's knows and at this time is not saying. So be it - I got over it long ago. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
No need to worry from being banned from this list from me. That's not my style of moderating. Yes I can no longer use ROS for some reason. I did ask but that went unanswered. All I know is that he posted a updated version and when ask for my call the program would shut down if I recall. Never did go back to it. But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
I agree with Rein's concern. Given the actions of the author in the past, and the fact that he is not even part of the amateur radio community, I'd be very hesitant to use that mode in a program, not know knowing what other malicious code might be embedded in the ROS software. Except for the 16 baud, 2000 Hz wide mode, which may be good for EME, I don't see from the QSL card postings on the ROS website that ROS is any better than Olivia or Contestia, and those modes do not take up a disproportionate amount of spectrum space. I'd say incorporate ROS at your own risk, programmers! 73 - Skip KH6TY Rein A wrote: Hello John, If your situation is not due to an installation problem or other, but is part of the distributed software, planned, programmed in, it might well have other consequences. ROS modem is under consideration to be incorporated in other amateur radio digital packages. Think about that angle. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB w0...@... wrote: Rein Really don't know what to say at this point. Still trying to understand why my call was added to the list of calls not able to use the ROS program. But since Jose will not say I'll just move on to things other then ROS. But I'm not the only one that this has happen to. No big deal I have gotten over it long ago. Now I'm just guessing but I think he may have misunderstood something I may have said in a post. Really not sure for the reason but since he is not talking about it I guess anyone of us that have been banned from using the program will never know. It all started when he posted a update to his program and then I found out that I could no longer us it. Like others. But I still have one of the first versions on a memory stick that I could use on the other computer if needed. Seems he is the *only* one that's knows and at this time is not saying. So be it - I got over it long ago. John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Follow-up
Hello All, from the OFFICIAL ROSMODEM WEBPAGE at 05:38 UTC: On June 7 at 00:00:01 UTC, new improvements will be incorporated to ROS Modes (ROS HF16, ROS HF8 and ROS MF7) It will improve a little more the robutness that characterizes to ROS Modes. So, this time, i expect will be possible across USA sky above ARRL headquarters with 0.015 watts instead of 0.025 watts of the latest QSO. Changes have been programmed previously in the software from version 3.6.5 two wees ago, so you should not problems during the transition. Sound records like youtuve, etc.. will not work with the new ROS from D-Day and H-Hour. ciao What's say Simon? 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rein A rein...@... wrote: Hello John, If your situation is not due to an installation problem or other, but is part of the distributed software, planned, programmed in, it might well have other consequences. ROS modem is under consideration to be incorporated in other amateur radio digital packages. Think about that angle. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB w0jab@ wrote: Rein Really don't know what to say at this point. Still trying to understand why my call was added to the list of calls not able to use the ROS program. But since Jose will not say I'll just move on to things other then ROS. But I'm not the only one that this has happen to. No big deal I have gotten over it long ago. Now I'm just guessing but I think he may have misunderstood something I may have said in a post. Really not sure for the reason but since he is not talking about it I guess anyone of us that have been banned from using the program will never know. It all started when he posted a update to his program and then I found out that I could no longer us it. Like others. But I still have one of the first versions on a memory stick that I could use on the other computer if needed. Seems he is the *only* one that's knows and at this time is not saying. So be it - I got over it long ago. John, W0JAB
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Exactly, Skip. Well put. Dave Real radio bounces off the sky _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of KH6TY Sent: Wednesday, 02 June, 2010 17:38 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP I agree with Rein's concern. Given the actions of the author in the past, and the fact that he is not even part of the amateur radio community, I'd be very hesitant to use that mode in a program, not know knowing what other malicious code might be embedded in the ROS software. Except for the 16 baud, 2000 Hz wide mode, which may be good for EME, I don't see from the QSL card postings on the ROS website that ROS is any better than Olivia or Contestia, and those modes do not take up a disproportionate amount of spectrum space. I'd say incorporate ROS at your own risk, programmers! 73 - Skip KH6TY Rein A wrote: Hello John, If your situation is not due to an installation problem or other, but is part of the distributed software, planned, programmed in, it might well have other consequences. ROS modem is under consideration to be incorporated in other amateur radio digital packages. Think about that angle. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@ mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, John Becker, WØJAB mailto:w0...@... w0...@... wrote: Rein Really don't know what to say at this point. Still trying to understand why my call was added to the list of calls not able to use the ROS program. But since Jose will not say I'll just move on to things other then ROS. But I'm not the only one that this has happen to. No big deal I have gotten over it long ago. Now I'm just guessing but I think he may have misunderstood something I may have said in a post. Really not sure for the reason but since he is not talking about it I guess anyone of us that have been banned from using the program will never know. It all started when he posted a update to his program and then I found out that I could no longer us it. Like others. But I still have one of the first versions on a memory stick that I could use on the other computer if needed. Seems he is the *only* one that's knows and at this time is not saying. So be it - I got over it long ago. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
- Original Message - But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections. I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the program and not any other random call? -- Dave AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
I think that is what I said below now in RED By my call I mean W0JAB At 12:44 PM 6/2/2010, you wrote: - Original Message - But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections. I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the program and not any other random call? -- Dave AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Oops, I missed that. What I *THOUGHT* you were saying is that you tried making a call (to a station with the current release) and succeeded. You might only be able to communicate with stations within a narrow range of release numbers near to the one you possess. I do think that demands for source code might be unnecessary, but IIRC a complete specification of the protocol is necessary. That's why PACTOR is legal. There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). -- Dave - AF6AS - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP I think that is what I said below now in RED By my call I mean W0JAB At 12:44 PM 6/2/2010, you wrote: - Original Message - But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections. I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the program and not any other random call? -- Dave AF6AS
[digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Hello Dave, K3DCW, and all others, What an eyeopener, that QRZ forum! http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742. Have been there in the beginning of this venture, but after having been shouted down on the other Yahoo group by some individuals and their uninformed follower's, I was under the impression that as far as the US ham population went this had become a dead issue, little interest, and the lets move on motto in place. Far from that, it appears. I like to use this method and in spite of its author, figurehow more or less useful it is in Weak Signal. Like to refer to a serious article in the VHF/UHF/EME/microwave magazine DUBUS. Reporting on some serious testing and comparisons with the EME designed WSJT method(s) by K1JT. Tests were done and reported by VK7MO, a well known weak signal person. In my opinion this is drifting into an area that is not good for amateur radio. The author refuses to listen, understand, address amateur radio licensing, domestic and international oversight and regulation, frequency coordination, and I can go on and on. Keeps referring to me as the ARRL's messenger as I tried so many times, to explain the difference between a radio amateur organization and an US Federal Regulatory Agency with world wide connection to the same in other countries. It is for instance, a big puzzle how an author of a software protocol can assign frequencies without checking with other users. Anyway, glad to see that I not just a single trouble maker as I am probably classified in certain circles. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave hfradio...@... wrote: Rein, There are several (around a dozen I think) amateur operators that are prohibited from using ROS by having their call signs hard-coded into a persona-non-grata listing in ROS. I am proud to be one of those ops. This has been extensively documented on QRZ in the following thread: http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742 http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742. I didn't think that John was one of them, but it has been awhile since the list was looked at last. Dave K3DCW _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rein A Sent: Wednesday, 02 June, 2010 17:12 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hello John, If your situation is not due to an installation problem or other, but is part of the distributed software, planned, programmed in, it might well have other consequences. ROS modem is under consideration to be incorporated in other amateur radio digital packages. Think about that angle. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , John Becker, WØJAB w0jab@ wrote: Rein Really don't know what to say at this point. Still trying to understand why my call was added to the list of calls not able to use the ROS program. But since Jose will not say I'll just move on to things other then ROS. But I'm not the only one that this has happen to. No big deal I have gotten over it long ago. Now I'm just guessing but I think he may have misunderstood something I may have said in a post. Really not sure for the reason but since he is not talking about it I guess anyone of us that have been banned from using the program will never know. It all started when he posted a update to his program and then I found out that I could no longer us it. Like others. But I still have one of the first versions on a memory stick that I could use on the other computer if needed. Seems he is the *only* one that's knows and at this time is not saying. So be it - I got over it long ago. John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Hello Dave, K3DCW, and all others, What an eyeopener, that QRZ forum! http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742. Have been there in the beginning of this venture, but after having been shouted down on the other Yahoo group by some individuals and their uninformed follower's, I was under the impression that as far as the US ham population went this had become a dead issue, little interest, and the lets move on motto in place. Far from that, it appears. I like to use this method and in spite of its author, figurehow more or less useful it is in Weak Signal. Like to refer to a serious article in the VHF/UHF/EME/microwave magazine DUBUS. Reporting on some serious testing and comparisons with the EME designed WSJT method(s) by K1JT. Tests were done and reported by VK7MO, a well known weak signal person. In my opinion this is drifting into an area that is not good for amateur radio. The author refuses to listen, understand, address amateur radio licensing, domestic and international oversight and regulation, frequency coordination, and I can go on and on. Keeps referring to me as the ARRL's messenger as I tried so many times, to explain the difference between a radio amateur organization and an US Federal Regulatory Agency with world wide connection to the same in other countries. It is for instance, a big puzzle how an author of a software protocol can assign frequencies without checking with other users. Anyway, glad to see that I not just a single trouble maker as I am probably classified in certain circles. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave hfradio...@... wrote: Rein, There are several (around a dozen I think) amateur operators that are prohibited from using ROS by having their call signs hard-coded into a persona-non-grata listing in ROS. I am proud to be one of those ops. This has been extensively documented on QRZ in the following thread: http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742 http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742. I didn't think that John was one of them, but it has been awhile since the list was looked at last. Dave K3DCW _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rein A Sent: Wednesday, 02 June, 2010 17:12 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hello John, If your situation is not due to an installation problem or other, but is part of the distributed software, planned, programmed in, it might well have other consequences. ROS modem is under consideration to be incorporated in other amateur radio digital packages. Think about that angle. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , John Becker, WØJAB w0jab@ wrote: Rein Really don't know what to say at this point. Still trying to understand why my call was added to the list of calls not able to use the ROS program. But since Jose will not say I'll just move on to things other then ROS. But I'm not the only one that this has happen to. No big deal I have gotten over it long ago. Now I'm just guessing but I think he may have misunderstood something I may have said in a post. Really not sure for the reason but since he is not talking about it I guess anyone of us that have been banned from using the program will never know. It all started when he posted a update to his program and then I found out that I could no longer us it. Like others. But I still have one of the first versions on a memory stick that I could use on the other computer if needed. Seems he is the *only* one that's knows and at this time is not saying. So be it - I got over it long ago. John, W0JAB
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Without intending to reopen the argument about spread spectrum, the FCC has spoken about the legality of the mode. A few US hams will argue that it isn't spread spectrum since it isn't any wider than a SSB channel. Spread spectrum has no bandwidth definition, it is a transmission technique plain and simple. The developer admitted that it is spread spectrum then changed it only when it was pointed out that spread spectrum is illegal in the US for amateurs below 220MHz. Any US hams that do decide to use the mode are risking their license. As someone pointed out somewhere, it won't be the requirement of the FCC to prove that it is Spread Spectrum when they issue the fine; it will be on the US ham to prove it isn't. That's an expensive battle that no one should want to take on...especially since the author originally defined it as such. The FCC has spoken (correctly or incorrectly) about this, so the issue should be closed here in the US. What concerns me even more is the anti-ham attitude of the developer. However, he was pretty smart in that he did manage to find a willing cadre of beta-testers for a system that ultimately has an unspecified objective. He is not a ham, so why target hams except that we're experimenters by nature, so he has built-in beta testers. Between that, his shoddy and amateurish attempts at coding and security, and the uncontrolled email access that the program provides (give up access to my gmail account, no way!), one should be careful in allowing this software to reside on their computer. All of this is a shame as it is an interesting, albeit very wide, weak-signal mode. Dave Real radio bounces off the sky _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rein A Sent: Wednesday, 02 June, 2010 18:39 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hello Dave, K3DCW, and all others, What an eyeopener, that QRZ forum! http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742. Have been there in the beginning of this venture, but after having been shouted down on the other Yahoo group by some individuals and their uninformed follower's, I was under the impression that as far as the US ham population went this had become a dead issue, little interest, and the lets move on motto in place. Far from that, it appears. I like to use this method and in spite of its author, figurehow more or less useful it is in Weak Signal. Like to refer to a serious article in the VHF/UHF/EME/microwave magazine DUBUS. Reporting on some serious testing and comparisons with the EME designed WSJT method(s) by K1JT. Tests were done and reported by VK7MO, a well known weak signal person. In my opinion this is drifting into an area that is not good for amateur radio. The author refuses to listen, understand, address amateur radio licensing, domestic and international oversight and regulation, frequency coordination, and I can go on and on. Keeps referring to me as the ARRL's messenger as I tried so many times, to explain the difference between a radio amateur organization and an US Federal Regulatory Agency with world wide connection to the same in other countries. It is for instance, a big puzzle how an author of a software protocol can assign frequencies without checking with other users. Anyway, glad to see that I not just a single trouble maker as I am probably classified in certain circles. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , Dave hfradio...@... wrote: Rein, There are several (around a dozen I think) amateur operators that are prohibited from using ROS by having their call signs hard-coded into a persona-non-grata listing in ROS. I am proud to be one of those ops. This has been extensively documented on QRZ in the following thread: http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742 http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742. I didn't think that John was one of them, but it has been awhile since the list was looked at last. Dave K3DCW _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Rein A Sent: Wednesday, 02 June, 2010 17:12 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hello John, If your situation is not due to an installation problem or other, but is part of the distributed software, planned, programmed in, it might well have other consequences. ROS modem is under consideration to be incorporated in other amateur radio digital packages. Think about that angle. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , John Becker, WØJAB w0jab@ wrote: Rein Really don't know what to say at this point. Still
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Hello Dave, AF6AS, IIRC what does it stand for? There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). Is that documented somewhere, not that I want to question the statement or you. What about something like: Those need to be able to read/decode it under all circumstances 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Dave Sparks dspa...@pobox.com Sent: Jun 2, 2010 2:14 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Oops, I missed that. What I *THOUGHT* you were saying is that you tried making a call (to a station with the current release) and succeeded. You might only be able to communicate with stations within a narrow range of release numbers near to the one you possess. I do think that demands for source code might be unnecessary, but IIRC a complete specification of the protocol is necessary. That's why PACTOR is legal. There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). -- Dave - AF6AS - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP I think that is what I said below now in RED By my call I mean W0JAB At 12:44 PM 6/2/2010, you wrote: - Original Message - But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections. I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the program and not any other random call? -- Dave AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
IIRC = if I remember correctly. The documentation issue stemmed from someone who complained that PACTOR, and maybe other digital modes, could be considered codes or cyphers, and the FCC ruled that they weren't because they were publicly documented. The source code has not been released by SCS, however. A public spec would resolve the issue of whether ROS is SS or not. I can't locate a reference to this issue, but if no one else remembers it, I will do a more intensive search on the subject I'm still wondering how CHIP-64 seems to be allowed on HF by the FCC. It is admittedly Spread Spectrum. -- Dave - AF6AS -- From: rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 1:01 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hello Dave, AF6AS, IIRC what does it stand for? There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). Is that documented somewhere, not that I want to question the statement or you. What about something like: Those need to be able to read/decode it under all circumstances 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Dave Sparks dspa...@pobox.com Sent: Jun 2, 2010 2:14 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Oops, I missed that. What I *THOUGHT* you were saying is that you tried making a call (to a station with the current release) and succeeded. You might only be able to communicate with stations within a narrow range of release numbers near to the one you possess. I do think that demands for source code might be unnecessary, but IIRC a complete specification of the protocol is necessary. That's why PACTOR is legal. There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). -- Dave - AF6AS - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP I think that is what I said below now in RED By my call I mean W0JAB At 12:44 PM 6/2/2010, you wrote: - Original Message - But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections. I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the program and not any other random call? -- Dave AF6AS http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Hello Dave, Don't sse ypou much anymore on HF WSJT ,changes in antenna? OK and thanks. I contacted the people in VA and they replied right away. telling me that they had stopped the mode. as a result of this case and I believe a ruling / statement by ARRL ( probably only , no official FCC staements) Very hard to check what is true and false. The stop is TRUE though MT63 or 61 is in use with MARS But MT63 is no SS I believe (not published stepping patterns etc ) 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Dave Sparks dspa...@pobox.com Sent: Jun 2, 2010 4:27 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP IIRC = if I remember correctly. The documentation issue stemmed from someone who complained that PACTOR, and maybe other digital modes, could be considered codes or cyphers, and the FCC ruled that they weren't because they were publicly documented. The source code has not been released by SCS, however. A public spec would resolve the issue of whether ROS is SS or not. I can't locate a reference to this issue, but if no one else remembers it, I will do a more intensive search on the subject I'm still wondering how CHIP-64 seems to be allowed on HF by the FCC. It is admittedly Spread Spectrum. -- Dave - AF6AS -- From: rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 1:01 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hello Dave, AF6AS, IIRC what does it stand for? There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). Is that documented somewhere, not that I want to question the statement or you. What about something like: Those need to be able to read/decode it under all circumstances 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Dave Sparks dspa...@pobox.com Sent: Jun 2, 2010 2:14 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Oops, I missed that. What I *THOUGHT* you were saying is that you tried making a call (to a station with the current release) and succeeded. You might only be able to communicate with stations within a narrow range of release numbers near to the one you possess. I do think that demands for source code might be unnecessary, but IIRC a complete specification of the protocol is necessary. That's why PACTOR is legal. There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). -- Dave - AF6AS - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP I think that is what I said below now in RED By my call I mean W0JAB At 12:44 PM 6/2/2010, you wrote: - Original Message - But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. What do you think? I think even Ray Charles could see that. Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to jump in here and make any needed corrections. I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the program and not any other random call? -- Dave AF6AS http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Found the section. It is 97.309(a)(4) of the code: http://www.arrl.org/technical-characteristics The reverse-engineering part is an inference on my part. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS -- From: rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 1:01 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hello Dave, AF6AS, IIRC what does it stand for? There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). Is that documented somewhere, not that I want to question the statement or you. What about something like: Those need to be able to read/decode it under all circumstances 73 Rein W6SZ
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
I have been experimenting with APRS-PSK63 lately. I'll probably get back to JT65 one of these days. I may even run ROS in beacon receive-only mode on occasion. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS -- From: rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 1:34 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hello Dave, Don't sse ypou much anymore on HF WSJT ,changes in antenna? OK and thanks. I contacted the people in VA and they replied right away. telling me that they had stopped the mode. as a result of this case and I believe a ruling / statement by ARRL ( probably only , no official FCC staements) Very hard to check what is true and false. The stop is TRUE though MT63 or 61 is in use with MARS But MT63 is no SS I believe (not published stepping patterns etc ) 73 Rein W6SZ
[digitalradio] HRD
Can anyone tell me which is better to use now ver4.2 or go on ahead and go with ver 5.0 that is still listed as beta on the HRD site. 73, Chuck AC5PW
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
--- On Wed, 2/6/10, Dave Sparks dspa...@pobox.com wrote: Found the section. It is 97.309(a)(4) of the code: http://www.arrl.org/technical-characteristics The reverse-engineering part is an inference on my part. No chance of reverse-engineering Pactor III from the information provided. 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Dave wrote: Spread spectrum has no bandwidth definition, it is a transmission technique plain and simple. This is a nuance, but an important technical one: There is a spreading ratio definition in SS that is one of the formal identifiers of spread spectrum vs other modulation techniques. It's far more important than bandwidth and is not clearly addressed in the current FCC rules or the ad-hoc interpretations. The spreading ratio is largely what defines how intrusive SS is on a band segment, and accordingly any SS ruling needs to factor that in. ROS is borderline on this with a spreading ratio far below traditional SS, but above that of most other modulation schemes if evaluated in a very literal sense, etc. So while there is a pseudo-ruling in place, it's not based on sound technical analysis of the mode against ITU definitions. I personally don't care if ROS is legal or not. I do care if overly broad or technically ignorant rulings impact future modulation schemes. Flawed precedents are dangerous things!
Re: [digitalradio] What is here Spread Spectrum and why and what is not?
Rein, You can decide for yourself if ROS is spread spectrum or not, just be observing it with any audio spectrum analyzer, or program like fldigi or Digipan that has a waterfall. Just observe the behavior with data and without data at idle and you will see. You find that the carriers of the 16 baud and 1 baud variations bear no relationship to the imposed data, but hop around randomly - a sure sign of spread spectrum or frequency hopping. Instead in FSK and PSK, the carrier frequencies are fixed and modulated with the data. MFSK16 is a FSK mode and MT63 is a PSK mode (modulation applied to 64 fixed frequencies). Here is a comparison I made, similar to what you can make yourself: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/SPECTRUM.JPG There is indisputable randomness to the ROS tone frequencies, even if you watch it for a long enough time. Applied to modulate a SSB transmitter, the resulting RF frequencies are also indisputably random. The FCC engineers have performed the same spectral analysis and informed the ARRL that the mode is truly spread spectrum. ROS now has some more narrow modes added, which I have not inspected, but maybe only the wide 1 baud and 16 baud varieties are spread spectrum, or frequency hopping, and the narrow ones are FSK - I don't know. Even if those narrow modes are not frequency-hopped, they are still grouped under the same umbrella, ROS, which means any approval of ROS for narrowband modes would wind up also approving the wide versions, which have all the appearance of being spread spectrum, or frequency hopped. For this reason, it did not work to include some narrow FSK modes to try to get overall approval by the FCC engineers. In fact it probably was an insult to their intelligence! The distinction of spread spectrum, or frequency-hopping, is simply that the carrier frequencies are determined independently of the data. Originally this was done in order to encrypt the signal unless you possessed the de-hopping code. It does not matter if the de-hopping code is sent along with the data, or the frequency spread is unusually narrow - frequency hopping is still frequency hopping - and that happens not to be allowed under 222 Mhz in FCC jurisdictions. A petition to modify the regulations can be submitted, but that has not been done, to my knowledge - just repeated attempts to fool the FCC with untruths. If a SSB transmitter is fed audio tones and the carrier is adequately suppressed, then the output is pure RF at the suppressed carrier frequency plus the individual tone frequency (for USB) and if the tones are frequency-hopped, it makes no difference if the RF generation is by frequency shift of an oscillator or by means of tones - the FCC is only interested in the emitted RF and its behavior. The advantage to frequency hopping, if you have the de-hopping code, is that the noise is random, but the signal has a known autocorrelation function, so integration by looking for the correlation can make the weak signal stand out from the random noise background - something I am sure you are aware of that has been long used in deep space communications. Splitting off the frequency-hopped modes from the same program that contains the narrow FSK modes might result in approval to use a separate program that has no frequency-hopped modes. The remaining program would only be allowed in the US above 222 Mhz. 73 - Skip KH6TY Rein A wrote: Hello All, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOmrgJkFY40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOmrgJkFY40 I found this interesting YouTube video, interesting to me at least. It is going a to be a big help watching waterfalls at 14.103 kHz and other channels such as http://etgd2.ewi.utwente.nl:8901/ http://etgd2.ewi.utwente.nl:8901/ 73 Rein W6SZ
[digitalradio] MT63 is NOT spread spectrum!
MT63 is PSK, and if you go to this link http://f1ult.free.fr/DIGIMODES/MULTIPSK/MT63_en.htm you can see how the carriers are fixed in frequency and not random in frequency. In fact, the description of MT63 is, DBPSK on 64 carrier tones. The tones are separated by 7.81 Hz for the 500 Hz bandwidth, 15.625 Hz for the 1000 Hz bandwidth or 31.25 Hz for the 2000 Hz bandwidth mode. The data is encoded using a Walsh-Hadamard transform to provide high degree of redundancy. The tones (i.e. carriers on a SSB transitter) are in a FIXED place and NOT randomly assigned a frequecy, so MT63 is NOT frequency hopped, or spread spectrum, even though it can be as wide as 2000 Hz. The spectrum of MT63 shows this very clearly. Compare that to the spectrum of ROS 16 and 1 baud of 2250 Hz width. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] What is here Spread Spectrum and why and what is not?
Trevor, I was not privy to the names of the engineers - only told in confidence by one of the group that it was done. There is no report, and Dan Henderson is the ARRL spokesman who relayed the information to hams. That finding was also published on the ARRL website. This is all I can say and will say on this subject. Sorry, that I can say no more, but you can make the tests for yourself and see that ROS is indeed frequency hopped. As has been stated, hams are responsible for following the regulations. It is definitely unusual that the FCC would look at the emitted frequencies as they did in this case, but I guess it was because of so much disagreement. When the FCC decides to prosecute an wrong-doer, they definitely make an analysis on their own - just read the various charges filed against out of banders that are caught, transmitting more than the allowed power, blocking repeaters, using profanity, etc. They have in many cases gone to much trouble to determine without a doubt that a rule was being broken. In this case, any ham can make the same analysis - just run ROS into a soundcard and look at the resulting spectrum. ARRL only tries to provide guidance so individuals do have to do that, but the responsibility is up to the individual amateur to comply with the regulations. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: --- On Wed, 2/6/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net wrote: The FCC engineers have performed the same spectral analysis and informed the ARRL that the mode is truly spread spectrum. That's interesting, the FCC have said they they did not give judgments on individual data modes, it's up to the operator to decide. Who were the FCC engineers you mention, where is their report and who in ARRL HQ did they communicate with. 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: [digitalradio] What is here Spread Spectrum and why and what is not?
Dave, The answer to your question is no for MT63, as it is nearly just as wide as ROS 16 baud, but will stop decoding at -8 dB S/N for the 50 wpm mode, Contestia 1000/64 at -13 dB S/N at 30 wpm, and Olivia slower at 15 wpm, but probably around -15 dB S/N. PSK31. PSK31 works down to -11.5 dB S/N at 50 wpm, as a comparison, but is only 31 Hz wide. The point is that for QSO's (which ROS does), not messaging (what WINMOR does), fast speed is not needed, because people usually cannot type more than around 50 wpm (the design goal for PSK31). For messaging however, you sacrifice minimum S/N for speed. You can get an idea by looking at the 1 baud mode of ROS, which is extremely slow, even for QSO's, but good just for exchanges, like in WSJT or moonbounce. This is where ROS has the greatest potential and where its wide width is not important because there is so much space at 70cm and 23cm. Otherwise, on HF, the same long-distance QSO's can be accomplished in much, much, less bandwidth, and probably just as effectively. I have often worked the South Pole, Japan, Australia, New Zealand with only 900 mw and PSK31 on 20m and the bandwidth was only 50 Hz maximum. If conditions are at all favorable, it does not take much power on the higher HF bands to go around the world. For UHF, and short exchanges, ROS is probably the best performer in a bandwidth of 2250 Hz, but the speed is very, very, slow. That is why the macros are like WSJT macros. It just takes too long to exchange much more. There is really no rationale for using ROS 16 baud on HF, as wide as it is, because our ham bands are shared, and spectrum hogs leave no room for others. However, on UHF, there is, and that is where ROS, with SS, is not counter-productive, but has the most promise. On UHF, we could use ROS, but it does not hold up well under Doppler Spreading, so we have settled on Contestia 1000/64 at 30 wpm as the best performing mode, decoding right down to the noise threshold, when even CW is hard to copy by ear. ROS simply failed to print when Contestia 1000/64 was printing 100%. Your point is well made, but there is a advantageous application for ROS, and that is on UHF for EME. Up there, it is legal for US hams to use also. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave Sparks wrote: More importantly (to me, at least) is Spread Spectrum the most effective or efficient way of using a given amount of bandwidth to deliver a given data rate, from a weak signal point of view? IOW, would ROS work better than, let's say, MT-63, WINMOR, or Olivia if those three modes were adjusted to use the same bandwidth and data rate as ROS? If it were open source, I would have included Pactor-3 in that list, too. If not, then using SS is counter-productive as well as legally problematic. (I'm not implying that ROS is SS, BTW.) -- Dave Sparks AF6AS -- From: Trevor . m5...@yahoo.co.uk mailto:m5aka%40yahoo.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 2:29 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] What is here Spread Spectrum and why and what is not? --- On Wed, 2/6/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net wrote: The FCC engineers have performed the same spectral analysis and informed the ARRL that the mode is truly spread spectrum. That's interesting, the FCC have said they they did not give judgments on individual data modes, it's up to the operator to decide. Who were the FCC engineers you mention, where is their report and who in ARRL HQ did they communicate with. 73 Trevor M5AKA http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] HRD
Version 5 is fine. On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:09 PM, ac5pw10 ac5p...@yahoo.com wrote: Can anyone tell me which is better to use now ver4.2 or go on ahead and go with ver 5.0 that is still listed as beta on the HRD site. 73, Chuck AC5PW
Re: [digitalradio] What is here Spread Spectrum and why and what is not?
Trevor, Just to clarify, the FCC defines modes by emission types and other things, such as if SS is allowed, and where. It is the operator who must follow the FCC regulations, and he has no legal right to decide whether or not HIS judgement is the one to follow, or if he follows the regulations or not. He MUST simply follow the regulations. If he cannot determine if he will legally emit with a certain mode, the ARRL is the one who has their technical experts provide guidance, but the ARRL does not make the rules! The FCC may or may not look at a particular mode's emissions - they usually only look at emissions on the air and determine if the operator is out of compliance or not. Probably similar to the enforcement vans that roam London looking for illegal TV and radio emissions, as I am told they did in the past, if they still do that. 73, Skip KH6TY That's interesting, the FCC have said they they did not give judgments on individual data modes, it's up to the operator to decide. 73 Trevor M5AKA
[digitalradio] Very Strange and Strong Signal [1 Attachment]
*[Attachment(s) from CT1QK included below] ALO to All I am listening now 11.00 UTC a very strong sinal since 7.175 to 7.185 more or less 10 kc wide with 59+30 db on the sstv frequencies I join a waterfall pic. Can someone tell me what kind of signal could it be? CT1QK *Attachment(s) from CT1QK: * 1 of 1 Photo(s) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/attachments/folder/269734287/item/list * Unknown-signal.jpg http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
