RE: [digitalradio] Where are our innovators?
Agreed - I would say that innovation is proceeding faster than at any time during the 35 years since I was first licenced to create QRM on 160m. There will be spectacular SDR radios released in 2010 / 2011. Simon Brown, HB9DRV http://sdr-radio.com From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of J. Moen I think there's quite a lot of innovation going on in several areas of ham radio -- QRP (hardware design, in particular), digital (mostly software in various areas, including D-Star) and software defined radio. In fact, I think you could say that even though digital ham radio is still in its infancy, this is nearly a golden age of creative new work. It certainly is an exciting time to be a ham.
[digitalradio] Moving ROS forward in the USA?
For those USA hams that are using ROS on HF, I assume that by using it...they feel it is not spread spectrum and thus should be legal. Is there any movement towards petitioning the FCC to reconsider the unofficial comments by them and obtaining statements that it is legal ? Or has everyone agreed it IS spread spectrum and given up on it becoming legal in the USA ? Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Andy, I have been told by a FCC engineer, part of the evaluation group at the FCC, whom I will not name, that ROS 16 baud and 1 baud has been evaluated in the lab and is spread-spectrum and therefore illegal on HF, not only because the author first said it was spread spectrum and then changed his story. Anyone with DigiPan or any other PSK31 program with a waterfall can verify that the frequency spreading is random and not a function of the data, which is the signature of spread-spectrum. Just because someone feels it is not spread spectrum does not excuse them from following the regulations and those who do not risk the chance of FCC action against them once someone files a complaint. There is no reason for the FCC to reconsider their decision, since it is based on analysis as well as the author's declaration. What can be done is to submit a petition to the FCC to allow limited bandwidth spread spectrum on HF by showing it is not harmful to other users of the bands. The instructions for submitting a petition are available on the FCC website. Radio amateurs are responsible for following the regulations, not just interpreting them as they see fit. ROS is legal above 222 Mhz, so freely use it there if you wish. It is probably really good for EME. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 6:55 AM, Andy obrien wrote: For those USA hams that are using ROS on HF, I assume that by using it...they feel it is not spread spectrum and thus should be legal. Is there any movement towards petitioning the FCC to reconsider the unofficial comments by them and obtaining statements that it is legal ? Or has everyone agreed it IS spread spectrum and given up on it becoming legal in the USA ? Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the FCC is not that gullible! The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do. This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of a false FCC approval. I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front of this computer. I hope you understand... 73, Skip KH6TY SK On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote: That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836 Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt digital noise reduction to hf/vhf data modes will stall I note interest in adding the mode to existing software was expressed at a early point in the proceedings ,those asking could see the advantage first hand . (may of been a Homer S DH moment) it looks however now, if this is perhaps not feasible , there is a DDS interface port , but this only connects the MF mode and is in use in France on 137k ,BW issues? MF takes 98 Hz I think Andy is right , some one needs to address the log jam your side of the pond , this not a issue of a local by law , its a cap on technical development , even stone tablets can be recycled these days... G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Andy, I have been told by a FCC engineer, part of the evaluation group at the FCC, whom I will not name, that ROS 16 baud and 1 baud has been evaluated in the lab and is spread-spectrum and therefore illegal on HF, not only because the author first said it was spread spectrum and then changed his story. Anyone with DigiPan or any other PSK31 program with a waterfall can verify that the frequency spreading is random and not a function of the data, which is the signature of spread-spectrum. Just because someone feels it is not spread spectrum does not excuse them from following the regulations and those who do not risk the chance of FCC action against them once someone files a complaint. There is no reason for the FCC to reconsider their decision, since it is based on analysis as well as the author's declaration. What can be done is to submit a petition to the FCC to allow limited bandwidth spread spectrum on HF by showing it is not harmful to other users of the bands. The instructions for submitting a petition are available on the FCC website. Radio amateurs are responsible for following the regulations, not just interpreting them as they see fit. ROS is legal above 222 Mhz, so freely use it there if you wish. It is probably really good for EME. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 6:55 AM, Andy obrien wrote: For those USA hams that are using ROS on HF, I assume that by using it...they feel it is not spread spectrum and thus should be legal. Is there any movement towards petitioning the FCC to reconsider the unofficial comments by them and obtaining statements that it is legal ? Or has everyone agreed it IS spread spectrum and given up on it becoming legal in the USA ? Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] New file uploaded to digitalradio
Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the digitalradio group. File: /JT65A/JT65-HF.pdf Uploaded by : iz4czl iz4...@yahoo.com Description : JT65-HF download mirror You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/files/JT65A/JT65-HF.pdf To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles Regards, iz4czl iz4...@yahoo.com
[digitalradio] New file uploaded to digitalradio
Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the digitalradio group. File: /JT65A/jt65-hf-setup.pdf Uploaded by : iz4czl iz4...@yahoo.com Description : JT65-HF setup and use guide.pdf (manual) You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/files/JT65A/jt65-hf-setup.pdf To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles Regards, iz4czl iz4...@yahoo.com
[digitalradio] Contestia Digital Mode Freqs
Contestia is one of the few mainstream digital modes that I have not worked. Where should I look for QSO's frequency wise? 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@tampabay.rr.com PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #20 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org 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/
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia Digital Mode Freqs
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:49:43AM -0400, Thomas F. Giella NZ4O wrote: Contestia is one of the few mainstream digital modes that I have not worked. Where should I look for QSO's frequency wise? Just above the PSK crowd, generally. I've seen them intermixed with Olivia and other multitone modes -- so much so that I had to switch from MIXW to DM780 just so I could decode the mode-ID sequence and see what was what. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mi...@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin
[digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum
This, as we say in the lightning fast chicken navy, the following is simply BS : Anyone with DigiPan or any other PSK31 program with a waterfall can verify that the frequency spreading is random and not a function of the data, which is the signature of spread-spectrum. The use of a randomizer is not the mark of spread spectrum, but rather the mark of a well-designed modem system, where a steady state data in does not cause a lack of random transmit link data. The receiver needs a steady stream of clock transitions in order to maintain receive synchronization. The transmit waveform needs a steady stream of pseudorandom data in order to maintain a minimum carrier spectral density, than therefore reduce its potential to other users. That is to say, making your transmit waveform appear noise like (I did NOT say, under the noise), gives other modems the best chance be minimally affected. Randomness is not a differential to uniquely identify a spread spectrum modulation. However, every spread spectrum system is pseudorandom. A does not mean B, but B is A. Lester B Veenstra MØYCM K1YCM mailto:les...@veenstras.com les...@veenstras.com mailto:m0...@veenstras.com m0...@veenstras.com mailto:k1...@veenstras.com k1...@veenstras.com US Postal Address: PSC 45 Box 781 APO AE 09468 USA UK Postal Address: Dawn Cottage Norwood, Harrogate HG3 1SD, UK Telephones: Office: +44-(0)1423-846-385 Home: +44-(0)1943-880-963 Guam Cell: +1-671-788-5654 UK Cell: +44-(0)7716-298-224 US Cell: +1-240-425-7335 Jamaica: +1-876-352-7504 This e-mail and any documents attached hereto contain confidential or privileged information. The information is intended to be for use only by the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail or any documents attached hereto is prohibited. From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of KH6TY Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 12:21 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Moving ROS forward in the USA? Andy, I have been told by a FCC engineer, part of the evaluation group at the FCC, whom I will not name, that ROS 16 baud and 1 baud has been evaluated in the lab and is spread-spectrum and therefore illegal on HF, not only because the author first said it was spread spectrum and then changed his story. Anyone with DigiPan or any other PSK31 program with a waterfall can verify that the frequency spreading is random and not a function of the data, which is the signature of spread-spectrum. Just because someone feels it is not spread spectrum does not excuse them from following the regulations and those who do not risk the chance of FCC action against them once someone files a complaint. There is no reason for the FCC to reconsider their decision, since it is based on analysis as well as the author's declaration. What can be done is to submit a petition to the FCC to allow limited bandwidth spread spectrum on HF by showing it is not harmful to other users of the bands. The instructions for submitting a petition are available on the FCC website. Radio amateurs are responsible for following the regulations, not just interpreting them as they see fit. ROS is legal above 222 Mhz, so freely use it there if you wish. It is probably really good for EME. 73, Skip KH6TY _._,___
Re: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Lester, I really appreciate your mannerly characterization of what I wrote as BS. :-( From the Wikipedia, a more exact definition of spread spectrum is, *Frequency-hopping spread spectrum* (*FHSS*) is a method of transmitting radio signals by rapidly switching a carrier /wiki/Carrier_wave among many frequency channels /wiki/Channel_%28communications%29, using a pseudorandom /wiki/Pseudorandom sequence known to both transmitter /wiki/Transmitter and receiver /wiki/Receiver_%28radio%29. Please post here what your own spectral analysis finds, and state if you are willing to testify to the FCC whether or not ROS is really FHSS. Thanks. 73, Skip KH6TY (No BS at this QTH!) On 7/12/2010 11:58 AM, Lester Veenstra wrote: This, as we say in the lightning fast chicken navy, the following is simply BS : ' Anyone with DigiPan or any other PSK31 program with a waterfall can verify that the frequency spreading is random and not a function of the data, which is the signature of spread-spectrum.' The use of a randomizer is not the mark of spread spectrum, but rather the mark of a well-designed modem system, where a steady state data in does not cause a lack of random transmit link data. The receiver needs a steady stream of clock transitions in order to maintain receive synchronization. The transmit waveform needs a steady stream of pseudorandom data in order to maintain a minimum carrier spectral density, than therefore reduce its potential to other users. That is to say, making your transmit waveform appear noise like (I did NOT say, under the noise), gives other modems the best chance be minimally affected. Randomness is not a differential to uniquely identify a spread spectrum modulation. However, every spread spectrum system is pseudorandom. A does not mean B, but B is A. /Lester B Veenstra MØYCM K1YCM/// les...@veenstras.com mailto:les...@veenstras.com m0...@veenstras.com mailto:m0...@veenstras.com k1...@veenstras.com mailto:k1...@veenstras.com US Postal Address: PSC 45 Box 781 APO AE 09468 USA UK Postal Address: Dawn Cottage Norwood, Harrogate HG3 1SD, UK Telephones: Office: +44-(0)1423-846-385 Home: +44-(0)1943-880-963 Guam Cell: +1-671-788-5654 UK Cell: +44-(0)7716-298-224 US Cell: +1-240-425-7335 Jamaica: +1-876-352-7504 This e-mail and any documents attached hereto contain confidential or privileged information. The information is intended to be for use only by the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail or any documents attached hereto is prohibited. *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *KH6TY *Sent:* Monday, July 12, 2010 12:21 PM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Moving ROS forward in the USA? Andy, I have been told by a FCC engineer, part of the evaluation group at the FCC, whom I will not name, that ROS 16 baud and 1 baud has been evaluated in the lab and is spread-spectrum and therefore illegal on HF, not only because the author first said it was spread spectrum and then changed his story. Anyone with DigiPan or any other PSK31 program with a waterfall can verify that the frequency spreading is random and not a function of the data, which is the signature of spread-spectrum. Just because someone feels it is not spread spectrum does not excuse them from following the regulations and those who do not risk the chance of FCC action against them once someone files a complaint. There is no reason for the FCC to reconsider their decision, since it is based on analysis as well as the author's declaration. What can be done is to submit a petition to the FCC to allow limited bandwidth spread spectrum on HF by showing it is not harmful to other users of the bands. The instructions for submitting a petition are available on the FCC website. Radio amateurs are responsible for following the regulations, not just interpreting them as they see fit. ROS is legal above 222 Mhz, so freely use it there if you wish. It is probably really good for EME. 73, Skip KH6TY _._,___
[digitalradio] KG-STV SSTVPICS
a tip from Richard for the KG-STV program. you can use SSTVPICS to place pics into KG-STV program as follows. with both programs open, click on the thumbnail as usual. then click on from clipboard and you picture is ready to go. sure beats cpy/paste from a directory ! david/wd4kpd -- God's law is set in stone : everything else is negotiable
RE: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Skip: Spectral analysis cannot differentiate between a high rate FEC operating after, as it invariably must, a randomizer, and a true spread spectrum system. And a spread spectrum system does not need to employ frequency hopping. And a signal that frequency hops is not necessarily a spread spectrum signal. I refer you to the old favorite of the UK Diplomatic service, the Piccolo. As I advocated in an earlier post, the way to end this endless discussion would be for the inventor to disclose the block diagram of the various steps in his encoding/modulation system. In fact I was rash enough to suggest that IMHO, all of these systems being played with by hams, should be open sourced, so that, the end user can have some confidence in what he is using, and the state of the art can be mutually advanced. We started with this philosophy with the TTL MAINLINER-II, and continue it today with many of the DSPR systems out there, including the primary commercial company. Their disclosure does not seem to have slowed them down at all. Thanks 73 Les Attached is a repeat (edited a bit) of my previous semi random thoughts on this to a UK member of the reflector. Robert: A DSP software engineer, smarter than you and me, can certainly write a diagnostic that will take the digitized audio, from a sound card A/D, and attempt to do what we do by ear. Typically such software, which does exist in other environments, relies on a number of human interventions, at the decision points, to classify the signal parameters. In the process of trying to determine what modulation and FEC scheme(s) are in use for a particular signal, knowing what the input pattern might be of limited value. The reason is that in any proper coding scheme, will, as one of its first steps, scramble or randomize the incoming data, in order to provide a uniformly random data stream to the subsequent steps in the process. These randomizers come in a few well defined forms, so it is not that hard to derandomize the result, once you have demodulated, and stripped off the FEC layers. If, as I note below, at this point the random, data does not appear the consequence of a known randomizing process, you may be looking at encrypted data. So in the end, what we are talking about is a software process that will try and look at the source encoding (in reverse, as a demod, decode, process), to see if the transmitted symbols are related to the input (user information data) by various types of FEC coding, (1) Frequency diversity, in the form of encoding the source to allow it to be transmitted (as adjacent multiple carriers) on multiple frequencies simultaneously, is needed to combat the frequency selective fading present on HF paths. This also can be used to lower the baud rate of the individual carrier. (2) FEC coding layers, to combat, with one type of FEC, the low signal to noise ratio (QRN) inherent in weak signal work, and additional layers of FEC, of a type appropriate to combat the time carrying interference environment typical of QRM and atmospheric QRN. (3) Time diversity coding, to combat the channels dispersive distortion in time over HF (short baud bad, long baud good), and frequency selective, but short duration, fading. Incidentally the short baud bad is one reason why spreading tends to underperform on real HF circuits compared to a flat white noise channel in a laboratory environment. However, in addition to the coding resulting from the input data that I have summarized in the three steps above, there is an additional data steam added, at any step in the process, that is not derived from the input data, and hence, random with respect to the data, and is added at the same symbol rate as the user derived symbols, you will have a case for encrypting coding. This certainly is expressly forbidden by the FCC and most national ham rules and regs. If, at the addition of the random data, it is done at a symbol rate higher than the symbol rate of the user derived symbols, you have a case of spread spectrum. The end result, not obvious by the simple minded analysis allegedly done by the FCC engineering office, is a transmission where the symbol rate appears much higher that would be expected from the identified (steps 1-3) coding processes. The real answer to the acceptability of a modulation system is not the result of signal analytics, but an analysis of the coding specifications, and hopefully source code examples, to see how you get from input data to modulated waveform. With is level of knowledge, the use of spread spectrum will be obvious. As an aside, the fact that a system uses m-ary FSK or multicarrier PSK, and the modulation keeps changing transmit symbols, when the input stream is all ones or all zeros, does not demonstrate the presence of a spread spectrum process. This is not a sufficient
Re: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Lester, The inventor has shown over and over that he is not to be trusted, and so his block diagram would not be believed either. I suggested months ago to him to just send his code in confidence to the FCC, which they would keep private, and be done with it. He replied that, arrogantly, The FCC would have to purchase the code from him. To me, that suggests that he is unwilling to disclose the code because it would prove once and for all that it was spread spectrum, and instead, he tried to bluff his way to approval, even by changing his original description of the code as spread spectrum, which obviously did not work. ROS's best advantage, IMHO, is for EME, and it is legal there for US hams for 432 and 1296 EME. I only wish it were legal on 2M also and I could use it for EME on that band. Yes, it should be open-source, and that would end the discussion, but he has (for perhaps devious or commercial) personal reasons for refusing to do so. That is just not going to happen, so let's end the discussion on that note and get on the air instead! 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 1:14 PM, Lester Veenstra wrote: Skip: Spectral analysis cannot differentiate between a high rate FEC operating after, as it invariably must, a randomizer, and a true spread spectrum system. And a spread spectrum system does not need to employ frequency hopping. And a signal that frequency hops is not necessarily a spread spectrum signal. I refer you to the old favorite of the UK Diplomatic service, the Piccolo. As I advocated in an earlier post, the way to end this endless discussion would be for the inventor to disclose the block diagram of the various steps in his encoding/modulation system. In fact I was rash enough to suggest that IMHO, all of these systems being played with by hams, should be open sourced, so that, the end user can have some confidence in what he is using, and the state of the art can be mutually advanced. We started with this philosophy with the TTL MAINLINER-II, and continue it today with many of the DSPR systems out there, including the primary commercial company. Their disclosure does not seem to have slowed them down at all. Thanks 73 Les
RE: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Hi Skip! Well said. Now let's see how many people in the group really pay attention to what they read. From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of KH6TY Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:28 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum Lester, The inventor has shown over and over that he is not to be trusted, and so his block diagram would not be believed either. I suggested months ago to him to just send his code in confidence to the FCC, which they would keep private, and be done with it. He replied that, arrogantly, The FCC would have to purchase the code from him. To me, that suggests that he is unwilling to disclose the code because it would prove once and for all that it was spread spectrum, and instead, he tried to bluff his way to approval, even by changing his original description of the code as spread spectrum, which obviously did not work. ROS's best advantage, IMHO, is for EME, and it is legal there for US hams for 432 and 1296 EME. I only wish it were legal on 2M also and I could use it for EME on that band. Yes, it should be open-source, and that would end the discussion, but he has (for perhaps devious or commercial) personal reasons for refusing to do so. That is just not going to happen, so let's end the discussion on that note and get on the air instead! 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 1:14 PM, Lester Veenstra wrote: Skip: Spectral analysis cannot differentiate between a high rate FEC operating after, as it invariably must, a randomizer, and a true spread spectrum system. And a spread spectrum system does not need to employ frequency hopping. And a signal that frequency hops is not necessarily a spread spectrum signal. I refer you to the old favorite of the UK Diplomatic service, the Piccolo. As I advocated in an earlier post, the way to end this endless discussion would be for the inventor to disclose the block diagram of the various steps in his encoding/modulation system. In fact I was rash enough to suggest that IMHO, all of these systems being played with by hams, should be open sourced, so that, the end user can have some confidence in what he is using, and the state of the art can be mutually advanced. We started with this philosophy with the TTL MAINLINER-II, and continue it today with many of the DSPR systems out there, including the primary commercial company. Their disclosure does not seem to have slowed them down at all. Thanks 73 Les
[digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Hi Skip. Hope you read it this time: Both these QSO's were on JT. On 18 April we had a long test with VK7MO on 23 cm. We tested a new digital mode called ROS on EME that has seen some use on 144 EME. We saw one good decode from Rex in ROS. We ran out of time and did not complete a QSO in ROS, but it should have been possible. Rex has written a fine article for DUBUS magazine about his findings with ROS. It seems ROS has no real advantages over JT65. We continued on JT65c, while Rex was using his software to eliminate the frequency change due to Doppler shift. This worked very well and we could easily copy him down to 0.5 W. After the Moon window with Rex closed, we worked VK2JDS and VK4CDI with 1 W on JT65. On the same day we managed to do what we believe is the first EME SSTV QSO on 70 cm with HB9Q! Pictures lo from 432 and Above EME Newsletter Aug 2010 http://www.nitehawk.com/rasmit/em70cm.html See under PI9CAS See also last Issue DUBUS Magazine , full report by Rex VK7MO as referenced here before. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Lester, The inventor has shown over and over that he is not to be trusted, and so his block diagram would not be believed either. I suggested months ago to him to just send his code in confidence to the FCC, which they would keep private, and be done with it. He replied that, arrogantly, The FCC would have to purchase the code from him. To me, that suggests that he is unwilling to disclose the code because it would prove once and for all that it was spread spectrum, and instead, he tried to bluff his way to approval, even by changing his original description of the code as spread spectrum, which obviously did not work. ROS's best advantage, IMHO, is for EME, and it is legal there for US hams for 432 and 1296 EME. I only wish it were legal on 2M also and I could use it for EME on that band. Yes, it should be open-source, and that would end the discussion, but he has (for perhaps devious or commercial) personal reasons for refusing to do so. That is just not going to happen, so let's end the discussion on that note and get on the air instead! 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 1:14 PM, Lester Veenstra wrote: Skip: Spectral analysis cannot differentiate between a high rate FEC operating after, as it invariably must, a randomizer, and a true spread spectrum system. And a spread spectrum system does not need to employ frequency hopping. And a signal that frequency hops is not necessarily a spread spectrum signal. I refer you to the old favorite of the UK Diplomatic service, the Piccolo. As I advocated in an earlier post, the way to end this endless discussion would be for the inventor to disclose the block diagram of the various steps in his encoding/modulation system. In fact I was rash enough to suggest that IMHO, all of these systems being played with by hams, should be open sourced, so that, the end user can have some confidence in what he is using, and the state of the art can be mutually advanced. We started with this philosophy with the TTL MAINLINER-II, and continue it today with many of the DSPR systems out there, including the primary commercial company. Their disclosure does not seem to have slowed them down at all. Thanks 73 Les
[digitalradio] Re: Fwd: Re: [ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP] HAMSPOTS telnet
Hi Steinar, Thanks. I get it. Not all those US calls are fake though. Some US users of ROS do not know about the situation. Not all radio amateurs in US are ARRL member or read their publications, etc.,even as ARRL member. ( I am a member and read most of what they publish ) Also, I used digital modes long before I learned about the specific Yahoo groups. Most of the time I get the stuff going by reading the manual when it does not work right away. I could have been happily using ROS modem if I wasn't so curious. We all are supposed the know the laws though, as you know that is the case in Norway well as here. Jose asked me to be a tester at the time that is how I learned about ROS. BTW have had the receiver on all day and not seen my call on Hamspots with no internet selected in the software. ( I am a member and read most of what they publish ) Have I provided my google password to a server somewhere? Any real idea's about that. I assumed that service was between Google's gmail and me and not between Jose and me. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no Sent: Jul 8, 2010 4:11 PM To: * ROSDIGITALMODEMGROU rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com, * Digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Fwd: Re: [ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP] HAMSPOTS the final word Hoho, world champion in typo. Here is what I was trying to explain: Then try to type c:telnet 90.225.73.203 8000 , then you will see that this is TELNET and that explains the funny call sign . When people is banned to use this software they are using a fake call sign . This fake call sign is then sent to the cluster when people are in RX mode. I hope the is better... LA5VNA Steinar Original Message Subject: Re: [ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP] HAMSPOTS the final word Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:26:30 +0200 From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no Reply-To: rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com To: * ROSDIGITALMODEMGROU rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com Hi Rain You have absolutely right . ROS are sending data from your PC to the cluster. Try to type the IP address 90.225.73.203:8000 into your browser and you get this: login: GET / HTTP/1.1 Host: 90.225.73.203:8000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; nb-NO; rv:1.9.2.6) Gecko/20100625 Firefox/3.6.6 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: nb,no;q=0.8,nn;q=0.6,en-us;q=0.4,en;q=0.2 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Keep-Alive: 115 Connection: keep-alive Sorry GET / HTTP/1.1 is an invalid callsign - Then try to type c:telnet 90.225.73.203 8000 , then you will see that this is TELNET and that explains the funny call sings . Whe people is bande in this software whey are using a fake call sign . This fake call sign is the sent to the cluster when people is in RX mode. I hope this is understandable . LA5VNA Steinar On 08.07.2010 20:53, Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Rein After reading your mail about ROS and the HamSpots , I have done some testing. I have monitored the activity of the latest ROS v4.5.7 in RX mode. I have been using Process Explorer from Sysinternals (microsoft) .With The Process Explorer you have the possibility to see the network activity in real time . What I fount out was that the ADIFdata2 module in ROS was trying to connect to the address: 90.225.73.203, 217.31.161.71,8 or 217.31.161.34.50 on port 8000 and sending data from my computer. LA5VNA Steinar On 08.07.2010 05:20, Rein A wrote: Thank you, Laurei: Where Do The Spots Come From? 08-Jul-2010 14:45utc There has been much internet speculation that HamSpots gets the ROS spots directly from the ROS Software. This is INCORRECT. ROS spots are retrieved from the DX Cluster ONLY. This site has no relationship with the ROS software or its developer. HamSpots maintains a private dedicated Cluster Node and processes all incoming spots to that node to determine the mode being used (ROS, PSK, RTTY, SSTV, HELL, etc.) to display correctly on the individual Mode Pages. HamSpots also takes direct feeds from the PSKReporter Network (thanks to N1DQ) and the JT65 Reverse Beacon Network (thanks to W6CQZ). 73 Rein, W6SZ Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Why do you persist in getting the FCC involved? You are potentially damaging the hobby as a whole. If one is qualified to hold a license the FCC presumes ones ability to determine what operations are legal. On 7/12/10 1:28 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: Lester, The inventor has shown over and over that he is not to be trusted, and so his block diagram would not be believed either. I suggested months ago to him to just send his code in confidence to the FCC, which they would keep private, and be done with it. He replied that, arrogantly, The FCC would have to purchase the code from him. To me, that suggests that he is unwilling to disclose the code because it would prove once and for all that it was spread spectrum, and instead, he tried to bluff his way to approval, even by changing his original description of the code as spread spectrum, which obviously did not work. ROS's best advantage, IMHO, is for EME, and it is legal there for US hams for 432 and 1296 EME. I only wish it were legal on 2M also and I could use it for EME on that band. Yes, it should be open-source, and that would end the discussion, but he has (for perhaps devious or commercial) personal reasons for refusing to do so. That is just not going to happen, so let's end the discussion on that note and get on the air instead! 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 1:14 PM, Lester Veenstra wrote: Skip: Spectral analysis cannot differentiate between a high rate FEC operating after, as it invariably must, a randomizer, and a true spread spectrum system. And a spread spectrum system does not need to employ frequency hopping. And a signal that ³frequency hops² is not necessarily a spread spectrum signal. I refer you to the old favorite of the UK Diplomatic service, the Piccolo. As I advocated in an earlier post, the way to end this endless discussion would be for the ³inventor² to disclose the block diagram of the various steps in his encoding/modulation system. In fact I was rash enough to suggest that IMHO, all of these systems being played with by hams, should be open sourced, so that, the end user can have some confidence in what he is using, and the state of the art can be mutually advanced. We started with this philosophy with the TTL MAINLINER-II, and continue it today with many of the DSPR systems out there, including the primary commercial company. Their disclosure does not seem to have slowed them down at all. Thanks 73 Les
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Sigi, Have to agree with you here. Since Spread Spectrum is not authorized in the US below 220MHz, and since CHIP 64/128 is Spread Spectrum, no one in the US can use MultiPSK since it includes CHIP??? Well, of course, that isn't the case. Logic would have to prevail, but with the negativity towards ROS, everyone in the US would be better off just staying away from it except about 220MHz. Dave K3DCW On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de wrote: That would mean if you would implement ros or similar in a multimode soft like multipsk or dm780 you would not be allowed to use it (the whole soft) in us ??? I think if only a part of the soft is forbidden to use (on transmit) all other modes can be used If for instance rtty was forbidden in germany but no other mode I can use all other modes in a given software So if in us ros hf is forbidden (but not ros mf) you could use it in us … right?? Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong Sigi -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net Real radio bounces off of the sky
Re: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Hi W2XJ, Could you tell me please ( I am believe to be the only person in the group of 4000 seriously interested in this subject as a potential user ) the exact definition of SS in this connection. Open domain references available to me as a non menber of IEEE and the rest. frequency hopping published protocol in public domain being available to FCC or NSA et al to read transmissions. What all else goes into this. It is called by FCC illegal but they do not provide tthe test criteria for me to make that descision. I think I can do: from SS is: -1-, -2-,-3- ask is Ros -1- or not? is Ros -2- ,, etc. It has the same or slightly smaller than SSB does not do it I think I like to read or be able to search -1- , -2- , and so on from a reliable source not private, agenda based opinions. I went yesterday through all emails on the ros modem group and got certain impressions from doing this. I hope you read this and engage, here or in private. === Given the statement via ARRL outlet. What happens if FCC ask me hey I tell them well I did the analysis, found this and the other party tells me sorry sir you are wrong and you violated section this and that? even I were to ask, why please and they say, we told you it was illegal! 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: W2XJ w...@w2xj.net Sent: Jul 12, 2010 5:52 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum Why do you persist in getting the FCC involved? You are potentially damaging the hobby as a whole. If one is qualified to hold a license the FCC presumes ones ability to determine what operations are legal. On 7/12/10 1:28 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: Lester, The inventor has shown over and over that he is not to be trusted, and so his block diagram would not be believed either. I suggested months ago to him to just send his code in confidence to the FCC, which they would keep private, and be done with it. He replied that, arrogantly, The FCC would have to purchase the code from him. To me, that suggests that he is unwilling to disclose the code because it would prove once and for all that it was spread spectrum, and instead, he tried to bluff his way to approval, even by changing his original description of the code as spread spectrum, which obviously did not work. ROS's best advantage, IMHO, is for EME, and it is legal there for US hams for 432 and 1296 EME. I only wish it were legal on 2M also and I could use it for EME on that band. Yes, it should be open-source, and that would end the discussion, but he has (for perhaps devious or commercial) personal reasons for refusing to do so. That is just not going to happen, so let's end the discussion on that note and get on the air instead! 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 1:14 PM, Lester Veenstra wrote: Skip: Spectral analysis cannot differentiate between a high rate FEC operating after, as it invariably must, a randomizer, and a true spread spectrum system. And a spread spectrum system does not need to employ frequency hopping. And a signal that ³frequency hops² is not necessarily a spread spectrum signal. I refer you to the old favorite of the UK Diplomatic service, the Piccolo. As I advocated in an earlier post, the way to end this endless discussion would be for the ³inventor² to disclose the block diagram of the various steps in his encoding/modulation system. In fact I was rash enough to suggest that IMHO, all of these systems being played with by hams, should be open sourced, so that, the end user can have some confidence in what he is using, and the state of the art can be mutually advanced. We started with this philosophy with the TTL MAINLINER-II, and continue it today with many of the DSPR systems out there, including the primary commercial company. Their disclosure does not seem to have slowed them down at all. Thanks 73 Les
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Hi Dave, Why don't we try to meet this thing head on, instead of saying too difficult, too boring, fed up and tired of talking, thinking about it. Please lets move on, there are other digital methods, why not just use those? 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Dave Wright hfradio...@gmail.com Sent: Jul 12, 2010 7:25 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? Sigi, Have to agree with you here. Since Spread Spectrum is not authorized in the US below 220MHz, and since CHIP 64/128 is Spread Spectrum, no one in the US can use MultiPSK since it includes CHIP??? Well, of course, that isn't the case. Logic would have to prevail, but with the negativity towards ROS, everyone in the US would be better off just staying away from it except about 220MHz. Dave K3DCW On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de wrote: That would mean if you would implement ros or similar in a multimode soft like multipsk or dm780 you would not be allowed to use it (the whole soft) in us ??? I think if only a part of the soft is forbidden to use (on transmit) all other modes can be used If for instance rtty was forbidden in germany but no other mode I can use all other modes in a given software So if in us ros hf is forbidden (but not ros mf) you could use it in us … right?? Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong Sigi -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net Real radio bounces off of the sky
[digitalradio] ISS SSTV activation July 15-16
From: http://ariss-sstv.blogspot.com/ Thursday, July 8, 2010 MAI-75 activation planned for July 15-16 An activity to support SSTV activation (MAI-75) has been schedule on July 15 and 16. Times fall between 12:00-15:00 UTC on the 15th and 10:00-12:00 UTC on the 16th . Additional info as it comes available. Marc, PD4U
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
I'm all for itI've been anti-ROS since I read the Spread Spectrum description in the original documentation. My point, and Siegfried's as well, is that you can't say that a whole multi-mode package is illegal simply because one mode in it is illegal. I think that is fairly supportive of all of the other LEGAL modes out there, of which there are dozens! Dave On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 3:39 PM, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Hi Dave, Why don't we try to meet this thing head on, instead of saying too difficult, too boring, fed up and tired of talking, thinking about it. Please lets move on, there are other digital methods, why not just use those? 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Dave Wright hfradio...@gmail.com hfradiopro%40gmail.com Sent: Jul 12, 2010 7:25 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? Sigi, Have to agree with you here. Since Spread Spectrum is not authorized in the US below 220MHz, and since CHIP 64/128 is Spread Spectrum, no one in the US can use MultiPSK since it includes CHIP??? Well, of course, that isn't the case. Logic would have to prevail, but with the negativity towards ROS, everyone in the US would be better off just staying away from it except about 220MHz. Dave K3DCW On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de siegfried.jackstien%40freenet.de wrote: That would mean if you would implement ros or similar in a multimode soft like multipsk or dm780 you would not be allowed to use it (the whole soft) in us ??? I think if only a part of the soft is forbidden to use (on transmit) all other modes can be used If for instance rtty was forbidden in germany but no other mode I can use all other modes in a given software So if in us ros hf is forbidden (but not ros mf) you could use it in us … right?? Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong Sigi -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net Real radio bounces off of the sky -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net Real radio bounces off of the sky
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Skip, I have a lot of respect for you and appreciated every time you emailed me. Honest. Went yesterday through all messages on ROSMODEM and got the idea of some anti biases built in here and there. Almost from day in. You have numerous messages about US ROS use and I sense it. Sure I have a bias the other way, difference though, ROS is not my program. Even more interesting as far as Jose goes I might be his biggest enemy in the universe. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Sent: Jul 12, 2010 3:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the FCC is not that gullible! The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do. This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of a false FCC approval. I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front of this computer. I hope you understand... 73, Skip KH6TY SK On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote: That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836 Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt digital noise reduction to hf/vhf data modes will stall I note interest in adding the mode to existing software was expressed at a early point in the proceedings ,those asking could see the advantage first hand . (may of been a Homer S DH moment) it looks however now, if this is perhaps not feasible , there is a DDS interface port , but this only connects the MF mode and is in use in France on 137k ,BW issues? MF takes 98 Hz I think Andy is right , some one needs to address the log jam your side of the pond , this not a issue of a local by law , its a cap on technical development , even stone tablets can be recycled these days... G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Andy, I have been told by a FCC engineer, part of the evaluation group at the FCC, whom I will not name, that ROS 16 baud and 1 baud has been evaluated in the lab and is spread-spectrum and therefore illegal on HF, not only because the author first said it was spread spectrum and then changed his story. Anyone with DigiPan or any other PSK31 program with a waterfall can verify that the frequency spreading is random and not a function of the data, which is the signature of spread-spectrum. Just because someone feels it is not spread spectrum does not excuse them from following the regulations and those who do not risk the chance of FCC action against them once someone files a complaint. There is no reason for the FCC to reconsider their decision, since it is based on analysis as well as the author's declaration. What can be done is to submit a petition to the FCC to allow limited bandwidth spread spectrum on HF by showing it is not harmful to other users of the bands. The instructions for submitting a petition are available on the FCC website. Radio amateurs are responsible for following the regulations, not just interpreting them as they see fit. ROS is legal above 222 Mhz, so freely use it there if you wish. It is probably really good for EME. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 6:55 AM, Andy obrien wrote: For those USA hams that are using ROS on HF, I assume that by using it...they feel it is not spread spectrum and thus should be legal. Is there any movement towards petitioning the FCC to reconsider the unofficial comments by them and obtaining statements that it is legal ? Or has everyone agreed it IS spread spectrum and given up on it becoming legal in the USA ? Andy K3UK
Re: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Sigi You in Germany and perhaps others in Spain, Italy, France, UK, Russia should stop using ROS until Jose fixes this problem . I am sure he is sensitive to that and will respond to a temporary boycott. One should be able to do this via the amateur radio organizations, DARC. RSGB etc They send out newsletters, get out the word so that Jose wil listen. I do not think ARRL will respond, fof them it is easy, ROS is illegal to use, so why should we getting involved? 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de Sent: Jul 12, 2010 7:19 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? That would mean if you would implement ros or similar in a multimode soft like multipsk or dm780 you would not be allowed to use it (the whole soft) in us ??? I think if only a part of the soft is forbidden to use (on transmit) all other modes can be used If for instance rtty was forbidden in germany but no other mode I can use all other modes in a given software So if in us ros hf is forbidden (but not ros mf) you could use it in us . right?? Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong Sigi
Re: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum
It was not my idea. The author wanted the FCC to say it was not spread spectrum. Unfortunately for all of us in the US, it is spread spectrum, and the FCC rules do not allow that below 222 MHz. I am not potentially damaging the hobby as a whole, just posting what I know. Go ahead and use ROS if you think you will be legal! You will do more damage to the hobby than anyone who refuses to use it, by flaunting the regulations. 73, Skip KH6TY. On 7/12/2010 1:52 PM, W2XJ wrote: Why do you persist in getting the FCC involved? You are potentially damaging the hobby as a whole. If one is qualified to hold a license the FCC presumes ones ability to determine what operations are legal. On 7/12/10 1:28 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net wrote: Lester, The inventor has shown over and over that he is not to be trusted, and so his block diagram would not be believed either. I suggested months ago to him to just send his code in confidence to the FCC, which they would keep private, and be done with it. He replied that, arrogantly, The FCC would have to purchase the code from him. To me, that suggests that he is unwilling to disclose the code because it would prove once and for all that it was spread spectrum, and instead, he tried to bluff his way to approval, even by changing his original description of the code as spread spectrum, which obviously did not work. ROS's best advantage, IMHO, is for EME, and it is legal there for US hams for 432 and 1296 EME. I only wish it were legal on 2M also and I could use it for EME on that band. Yes, it should be open-source, and that would end the discussion, but he has (for perhaps devious or commercial) personal reasons for refusing to do so. That is just not going to happen, so let's end the discussion on that note and get on the air instead! 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 1:14 PM, Lester Veenstra wrote: Skip: Spectral analysis cannot differentiate between a high rate FEC operating after, as it invariably must, a randomizer, and a true spread spectrum system. And a spread spectrum system does not need to employ frequency hopping. And a signal that frequency hops is not necessarily a spread spectrum signal. I refer you to the old favorite of the UK Diplomatic service, the Piccolo. As I advocated in an earlier post, the way to end this endless discussion would be for the inventor to disclose the block diagram of the various steps in his encoding/modulation system. In fact I was rash enough to suggest that IMHO, all of these systems being played with by hams, should be open sourced, so that, the end user can have some confidence in what he is using, and the state of the art can be mutually advanced. We started with this philosophy with the TTL MAINLINER-II, and continue it today with many of the DSPR systems out there, including the primary commercial company. Their disclosure does not seem to have slowed them down at all. Thanks 73 Les
Re: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Unless there is spread spectrum in ROS you cannot use it. Of course, you can use the part that is not spread spectrum, but the FCC is not going to issue a blanket approval for ROS if any part of it is spread spectrum. They are not interested in issuing approvals for programs anyway. They just said that ROS was spread spectrum when asked and spread spectrum is not allowed under 222 MHz, and had the ARRL communicate that. As a ham in the US, you simply may not emit a spread spectrum signal on HF. It is your duty to ensure that you do not, however you go about it. It is not the FCC's job to tell you what program you can use. It is the ARRL's job to interpret the regulations if asked, which, in this case, it is illegal to use ROS 16 or 1 baud on HF, or any other variation that is FHSS. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 3:19 PM, Siegfried Jackstien wrote: That would mean if you would implement ros or similar in a multimode soft like multipsk or dm780 you would not be allowed to use it (the whole soft) in us ??? I think if only a part of the soft is forbidden to use (on transmit) all other modes can be used If for instance rtty was forbidden in germany but no other mode I can use all other modes in a given software So if in us ros hf is forbidden (but not ros mf) you could use it in us ... right?? Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong Sigi
RE: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Spread spectrum is where, functionally equivalent to the to the randomizer, a pseudo random, or even truly random bits are added at a higher rate than the information bits. In a typical randomizer one bit is produced for each bit in. In the case of spreading, usually a significant number of “extra” bits are inserted at this point. These bits are not predicted by the input data. Instead, they are random in the sense they are nor correlated to the user data. These extra spreading bits serve to reduce the probability that the transmit energy (its power spectral density) will be observed at any given time in any given bandwidth. These extra bits serve only to reduce the power spectral density over a bandwidth (narrow with respect to the transmit spectral density) but otherwise do not increase the efficiency of the end to end circuit (with one exception I will address shortly). By efficiency, I mean the amount of energy required to get one bit of the input information, prior to any coding, modulation etc., to the users output on the receiver with a particular error rate. (Typically characterized by a performance curve of Eb/No vs B.E.R.) The critical point is, with an end to end link of some particular source coding FEC coding and modulation, its end to end performance can be characterized. in a perfect word, if you then “spread that system” by adding extra bits unrelated to the input information, and at receiving side, you knew how to despread, or remove the spreading bits, the link will have the same end to end performance. That is, adding a spread spectrum system around a communications link does not make it work better, and in most real world will actually degrade the end to end performance. This is because the processes used to despread are never perfect. So in a spread system, you have a transmit signal that covers a wider spectrum than the original link, but because the same energy is used, the power spectral density, the amount of energy per unit bandwidth, is reduced. This reduced density has some advantages if you are trying to hide the fact that you are communicating by making your transmit spectral power less than the noise level. Of course if the fellow you are trying to hide from can get close to your transmitter, you pop up from under the noise, and game over. Two other reasons to use spread spectrum, one very real (but not for typical hams) and one a bit illusionary. The reason for most of the spread spectrum in real use is called CDMA, Code Division Multiple Access. Most hams use FDMA, frequency Division Multiple access. For an FDMA example, a great many of us access the 20m band at once, but the multiple accesses to the band are done by each user being on his own frequency (Frequency Division). Of course in this case the stronger user on a given frequency and given path effectively has the access to the channel. In CDMA each user uses the full band, at the same “carrier” frequency, but each transmitter has a spreading code that is unique. At the receiver, the desired link is “tuned” by dispreading with the same extra bit sequence as was used at the transmitter to spread. Signals in the bandwidth having different codes will appear to the despread process as random noise, once the wide band signal desired is despread to a narrow band link. On the receive end of a spread link, the rejection of other spreading codes is also applied to any other signal. The dispreading process will spread the energy of an interfering signal over the spread bandwidth. An example: Assume a unspread link of an occupied bandwidth of 10 kHz and a power of 10 watts. This will have a power spectral density of 10 watts per 10 kHz, or 1 watt per kHz, or 1 mw per Hz. Assume this is spread with a 1 Mchip/s digital signal using BPSK modulation. The 10w/10 kHz watts is now effectively spread over 1 MHz of bandwidth reducing the power spectral density to 10 watts per 1000 kHz, or 1 watt per 100 KHz, or 1 mW per 1 kHz or .001 uw per Hz. The spreading factor is the 10 Log(Spread BW/unspread BW) = 10*log(1000/10) = 20 dB. Thus 1 mW/Hz (-30 dBW/Hz) is reduced to .001 mW/Hz (-50 dBW/Hz) At the receive end the despread process restores the -50 dBW/Hz to -30 dBW/Hz, assuming for argument, no path loss. However, assume that on the path there is a co-frequency narrow band signal interfering also at 10W/10KHz. The dispreading process, which is identical to the spreading process, will spread that 10 watts of interfering signal over 1 MHz, reducing its power spectral density to – 50 dBw/Hz. So at the exit of the despreader, you have a desired signal of -30 dBW/Hz and an interfering signal of -50 dBW/Hz. Thus what, without spreading would have been a zero dB Signal to Noise(QRM) is now a +30 dB S/N. The gotcha for SS in HF is that you need a wide bandwidth to channel bandwidth ratio to get a significant (15-20 dB)
AW: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
I was begging onb my knees that jose will Stopp the autospotting cause that made a lot of trouble I said that we all should stop the adif in a firewall . maybe THAT will bring jose to think But if he has made a decision there is almost no way to change his thoughts I do not know if boycott will help . but stopping adif is boycott on the spots .
[digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Rein, Yes I was aware of those issues .. I never really did agree with the frenzy of auto spotting any digital mode, gave me a gold fish bowl feeling, but that is the modern twitter way (of which I'm not part of)of doing things .. friends on face book , the number of video views , game score's there are now app's that enhance all of these .. what happen here reflected the outside world .. the attack on the server from EU is also a new (to us) Phenomena .. Im not quite sure exactly what we have all witnessed ? looking at V-1 , the link to ham spots has been removed and in the ADIF area there now is a option to send spots .. I note on the hamspot page there is a ros page which shows by red dot, spots sent from the software. I understood that the 'www' aspect you have described, was now in effect closed and the lingering argument was based purely on technical definitions and possibly as you recently posted, other factors not quite in the public domain. ?? 73 -G . --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rein A rein...@... wrote: Hi Graham, ROS software is transmitting a large quantity of messages many fake, some will say illegal, every time your software if turned on, and received a message from a radio amatuer with his own call or a borrowed callsign. This was discovered due to my questioning where US calls came from and what they represented on this logger. http://www.hampspots.net/ in Australia. The owner has made changes and is in conflict now with the ROS author. ROS author wants to see ROS section closed down on Netspots.net zodat we do not can see this happening any longer. (more to it ) Both on this yahoo board and the ROS modem board you can find details of this since last Friday when this was discovered not by me though. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, graham787 g0nbd@ wrote: Rein, I'm reading this last post , but something is missing , what problem is Jose supposed to fix ? On what ground's should the rest of the world stop using the mode ? My license allows me to transmit mfsk , makes no reference to how the frequency steps are generated and expressly forbids transmissions in code or cypher and as Ros-1 is freely available (for now) the secret aspect is not applicable I think , it has been reasonably established , that the catch 22o clause is historic, bandwidth lead and has been overtaken by technology. Lester ,posted quite a viable path to resolve the problem.. very little in engineering is back and white , Lester's post is suitably Gray to split opinions .. and that's all it needs ..a new common ground .. a way out for all involved. There is nothing 'we' The old world can do in support of the situation , on the contrary, perhaps the apparent exclusion of the middle of the 'new world' from technological advancement may add leverage ? 73 -G . --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, rein0zn@ wrote: Sigi You in Germany and perhaps others in Spain, Italy, France, UK, Russia should stop using ROS until Jose fixes this problem . I am sure he is sensitive to that and will respond to a temporary boycott. One should be able to do this via the amateur radio organizations, DARC. RSGB etc They send out newsletters, get out the word so that Jose wil listen. I do not think ARRL will respond, fof them it is easy, ROS is illegal to use, so why should we getting involved? 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackstien@ Sent: Jul 12, 2010 7:19 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? That would mean if you would implement ros or similar in a multimode soft like multipsk or dm780 you would not be allowed to use it (the whole soft) in us ??? I think if only a part of the soft is forbidden to use (on transmit) all other modes can be used If for instance rtty was forbidden in germany but no other mode I can use all other modes in a given software So if in us ros hf is forbidden (but not ros mf) you could use it in us . right?? Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong Sigi
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
I was contacted by the person. I did not initiate the contact. I have had dealings with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau as a result of a petition I amde and I guess I have earned a little measure of respect and trust by some of them. I have been asked not to identify anyone, so please do not ask again. I just want those who say the ARRL made the determination about ROS that the ARRL was only the mouthpiece of the FCC and it was the FCC that made the analysis and determination. I really do not have time to rehash ROS over and over, so I will not comment or respond to ROS questions any more. I think I have honestly said enough and certainly put more time in analyzing ROS for myself than most of the people who disagree with what I have said. No more comments about ROS from me! 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 5:00 PM, Rein A wrote: Dear Skip, This is the second time you post this message about the FCC engineer Why don't you tell us how we can get in touch with this engineer. I would really like to hear that from that person and I would ask him whether the info was for public consumption or on background as used in the Media, not authorized to talk about it because of this or that. Where does this person work, Washington DC, PA, Boston? Why is this engineer's statement not in the public domain? FCC is a Federal Agency , not some hidden laboratory in a basement somewhere, privately owned, concerned about IP or patents. Always have to get back to this point Why is this not published by FCC on there information outlets? They publish all the time as the Federal Communication Commission and not to a private person or a club of hobbyists with all respect for the ARRL. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Andy, I have been told by a FCC engineer, part of the evaluation group at the FCC, whom I will not name, that ROS 16 baud and 1 baud has been evaluated in the lab and is spread-spectrum and therefore illegal on HF, not only because the author first said it was spread spectrum and then changed his story. Anyone with DigiPan or any other PSK31 program with a waterfall can verify that the frequency spreading is random and not a function of the data, which is the signature of spread-spectrum. Just because someone feels it is not spread spectrum does not excuse them from following the regulations and those who do not risk the chance of FCC action against them once someone files a complaint. There is no reason for the FCC to reconsider their decision, since it is based on analysis as well as the author's declaration. What can be done is to submit a petition to the FCC to allow limited bandwidth spread spectrum on HF by showing it is not harmful to other users of the bands. The instructions for submitting a petition are available on the FCC website. Radio amateurs are responsible for following the regulations, not just interpreting them as they see fit. ROS is legal above 222 Mhz, so freely use it there if you wish. It is probably really good for EME. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 6:55 AM, Andy obrien wrote: For those USA hams that are using ROS on HF, I assume that by using it...they feel it is not spread spectrum and thus should be legal. Is there any movement towards petitioning the FCC to reconsider the unofficial comments by them and obtaining statements that it is legal ? Or has everyone agreed it IS spread spectrum and given up on it becoming legal in the USA ? Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
I'm can understand how Garrett feels -- I felt something similar when we were all using the Melp codec for FDMDV on HF, and the owners of Melp kind of knew about it but since no one was trying to make money from it (we are amateurs and not in it for the money), they turned a blind eye to what we all were doing. But one of us just had to get an official answer from the Melp rights holder about our usage. Once officially asked, of course, they had to state that we had no right to use it. Melp usage went to zero in about three days. On the other hand, this ROS thing is a lot simpler. Forget the FCC. Here in the US, we also believe in doing the right thing and following the law, even if we are simultaneously trying to get the law changed. Unfortunately (and stupidly, in my opinion, since it should be bandwidth, not technique that's important), SS is not allowed in US jurisdictions below 220. Before all this stuff hit the fan, the author claimed it was SS, and various spectrum tests appear to back that up. So as a US ham, I'm not planning to use it, particularly since we have lots of data to show other solutions are either as good or better. In my opinion, my not using it is the right thing for me to do. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: AA0OI To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? HI: I Just have one question... HOW THE HELL OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE ?!! Grow Up, and let it die..You have all stabbed it enought to kill it 20 times over.. The only problem with this mode is that you all have to run and ask Uncle FCC what do we do , what do we do ? If everyone would just shut the hell up and use the mode and not whine like a 12 year old girl, the FCC would not even know that it existed or EVEN CARE !! Ham Radio is AMATEUR RADIO--- NOT PROFESSIONAL...Some of its use is for EXPERIMENTATION (if not we'd all be using spark-gap radios today !!! So THANKS for screwing ROS up for the rest of us that don't need Big Brothers permission to pee in the night.. And next time a new mode comes out... PLEASE just stay the hell away from it and go do something like PSK31or something else that you already have Permission to use from Uncle Government !! Its better to ask forgiveness,, because you'll never get permission and American : Thomas Jefferson Garrett / AA0OI -- From: rein...@ix.netcom.com rein...@ix.netcom.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 2:52:47 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? Skip, I have a lot of respect for you and appreciated every time you emailed me. Honest. Went yesterday through all messages on ROSMODEM and got the idea of some anti biases built in here and there. Almost from day in. You have numerous messages about US ROS use and I sense it. Sure I have a bias the other way, difference though, ROS is not my program. Even more interesting as far as Jose goes I might be his biggest enemy in the universe. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Sent: Jul 12, 2010 3:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the FCC is not that gullible! The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do. This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of a false FCC approval. I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front of this computer. I hope you understand... 73, Skip KH6TY SK On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote: That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836 Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt digital noise reduction to hf/vhf data modes will stall I note interest in adding the mode to
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Hear, hear rgrds Craig kq6i -Original Message- From: AA0OI [mailto:aa...@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:52 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? HI: I Just have one question... HOW THE HELL OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE ?!! Grow Up, and let it die..You have all stabbed it enought to kill it 20 times over.. The only problem with this mode is that you all have to run and ask Uncle FCC what do we do , what do we do ? If everyone would just shut the hell up and use the mode and not whine like a 12 year old girl, the FCC would not even know that it existed or EVEN CARE !! Ham Radio is AMATEUR RADIO--- NOT PROFESSIONAL...Some of its use is for EXPERIMENTATION (if not we'd all be using spark-gap radios today !!! So THANKS for screwing ROS up for the rest of us that don't need Big Brothers permission to pee in the night.. And next time a new mode comes out... PLEASE just stay the hell away from it and go do something like PSK31or something else that you already have Permission to use from Uncle Government !! Its better to ask forgiveness,, because you'll never get permission and American : Thomas Jefferson Garrett / AA0OI http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/47.gif From: rein...@ix.netcom.com rein...@ix.netcom.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 2:52:47 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? Skip, I have a lot of respect for you and appreciated every time you emailed me. Honest. Went yesterday through all messages on ROSMODEM and got the idea of some anti biases built in here and there. Almost from day in. You have numerous messages about US ROS use and I sense it. Sure I have a bias the other way, difference though, ROS is not my program. Even more interesting as far as Jose goes I might be his biggest enemy in the universe. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net Sent: Jul 12, 2010 3:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the FCC is not that gullible! The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do. This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of a false FCC approval. I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front of this computer. I hope you understand... 73, Skip KH6TY SK On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote: That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836 Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt digital noise reduction to hf/vhf data modes will stall I note interest in adding the mode to existing software was expressed at a early point in the proceedings ,those asking could see the advantage first hand . (may of been a Homer S DH moment) it looks however now, if this is perhaps not feasible , there is a DDS interface port , but this only connects the MF mode and is in use in France on 137k ,BW issues? MF takes 98 Hz I think Andy is right , some one needs to address the log jam your side of the pond , this not a issue of a local by law , its a cap on technical development , even stone tablets can be recycled these days... G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Andy, I have been told by a FCC engineer, part of the evaluation group at the FCC, whom I will not name, that ROS 16 baud and 1 baud has been evaluated in the lab and is spread-spectrum and therefore illegal on HF, not only because the author first said it was spread spectrum and then changed his story. Anyone with DigiPan or any other PSK31 program with a waterfall can verify that the frequency spreading is random and not a function of the data, which is the signature of spread-spectrum. Just because someone feels it is
[digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Hi Skip, I like to see this ruling revisited by technical personal within the FCC. The FCC, not ARRL. That's all. Mr. Dan Henderson is a paid lawyer ( unusual for ARRL officials ) Enough said here. He is a liaison person for among other organizations, the FCC. He communicates, does not ask questions I do not think and did not think the day it was made, it was done by the right person(s). What is Is is up to the people etc we don't rule on the mode or its content/operation? You and others here promoted the decision as in concrete. I think you and others like it to be so ( just an opinion ) All the stupidity of Jose and now this cluster thing make revisiting harder and harder, if not impossible indeed. If the few of us here who are interested to use ROS had been united and not scared by the please lets move on crowd we could have been able to at least reconsider the situation. Therefore we all should force Jose to fix this and the users outside the US should stop using it. Of course they are mot reading this or even part from this group. Clear and simple 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: It was not my idea. The author wanted the FCC to say it was not spread spectrum. Unfortunately for all of us in the US, it is spread spectrum, and the FCC rules do not allow that below 222 MHz. I am not potentially damaging the hobby as a whole, just posting what I know. Go ahead and use ROS if you think you will be legal! You will do more damage to the hobby than anyone who refuses to use it, by flaunting the regulations. 73, Skip KH6TY. On 7/12/2010 1:52 PM, W2XJ wrote: Why do you persist in getting the FCC involved? You are potentially damaging the hobby as a whole. If one is qualified to hold a license the FCC presumes ones ability to determine what operations are legal. On 7/12/10 1:28 PM, KH6TY kh...@... kh...@... wrote: Lester, The inventor has shown over and over that he is not to be trusted, and so his block diagram would not be believed either. I suggested months ago to him to just send his code in confidence to the FCC, which they would keep private, and be done with it. He replied that, arrogantly, The FCC would have to purchase the code from him. To me, that suggests that he is unwilling to disclose the code because it would prove once and for all that it was spread spectrum, and instead, he tried to bluff his way to approval, even by changing his original description of the code as spread spectrum, which obviously did not work. ROS's best advantage, IMHO, is for EME, and it is legal there for US hams for 432 and 1296 EME. I only wish it were legal on 2M also and I could use it for EME on that band. Yes, it should be open-source, and that would end the discussion, but he has (for perhaps devious or commercial) personal reasons for refusing to do so. That is just not going to happen, so let's end the discussion on that note and get on the air instead! 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 1:14 PM, Lester Veenstra wrote: Skip: Spectral analysis cannot differentiate between a high rate FEC operating after, as it invariably must, a randomizer, and a true spread spectrum system. And a spread spectrum system does not need to employ frequency hopping. And a signal that frequency hops is not necessarily a spread spectrum signal. I refer you to the old favorite of the UK Diplomatic service, the Piccolo. As I advocated in an earlier post, the way to end this endless discussion would be for the inventor to disclose the block diagram of the various steps in his encoding/modulation system. In fact I was rash enough to suggest that IMHO, all of these systems being played with by hams, should be open sourced, so that, the end user can have some confidence in what he is using, and the state of the art can be mutually advanced. We started with this philosophy with the TTL MAINLINER-II, and continue it today with many of the DSPR systems out there, including the primary commercial company. Their disclosure does not seem to have slowed them down at all. Thanks 73 Les
[digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Just reached this :- So, if bits are added to the transmit waveform that are not performing a function of helping to re-create an error free replication of the input data, it meets my test as spread spectrum. If the symbols in the transmit waveform cannot be predicted by the previous sequence of bits over time at the input, it also would meet my test as spread spectrum. To reiterate on this point, just because the symbols of the transmit waveform are changing during an unchanging input, does not imply spread spectrum. Instead, they may well be the result of a defined randomizer process followed by multiple layers of FEC and modulation coding. And is that not exactly what Jose posted as his first descriptiopn ...a randomized frequency allocation to enable noise cancellation ? As I posted before , this is the only way ahead , to challange the situation , with a way out for all .. this is the third angle .. G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Lester Veenstra les...@... wrote: Spread spectrum is where, functionally equivalent to the to the randomizer, a pseudo random, or even truly random bits are added at a higher rate than the information bits. In a typical randomizer one bit is produced for each bit in. In the case of spreading, usually a significant number of âextraâ bits are inserted at this point. These bits are not predicted by the input data. Instead, they are random in the sense they are nor correlated to the user data. These extra spreading bits serve to reduce the probability that the transmit energy (its power spectral density) will be observed at any given time in any given bandwidth. These extra bits serve only to reduce the power spectral density over a bandwidth (narrow with respect to the transmit spectral density) but otherwise do not increase the efficiency of the end to end circuit (with one exception I will address shortly). By efficiency, I mean the amount of energy required to get one bit of the input information, prior to any coding, modulation etc., to the users output on the receiver with a particular error rate. (Typically characterized by a performance curve of Eb/No vs B.E.R.) The critical point is, with an end to end link of some particular source coding FEC coding and modulation, its end to end performance can be characterized. in a perfect word, if you then âspread that systemâ by adding extra bits unrelated to the input information, and at receiving side, you knew how to despread, or remove the spreading bits, the link will have the same end to end performance. That is, adding a spread spectrum system around a communications link does not make it work better, and in most real world will actually degrade the end to end performance. This is because the processes used to despread are never perfect. So in a spread system, you have a transmit signal that covers a wider spectrum than the original link, but because the same energy is used, the power spectral density, the amount of energy per unit bandwidth, is reduced. This reduced density has some advantages if you are trying to hide the fact that you are communicating by making your transmit spectral power less than the noise level. Of course if the fellow you are trying to hide from can get close to your transmitter, you pop up from under the noise, and game over. Two other reasons to use spread spectrum, one very real (but not for typical hams) and one a bit illusionary. The reason for most of the spread spectrum in real use is called CDMA, Code Division Multiple Access. Most hams use FDMA, frequency Division Multiple access. For an FDMA example, a great many of us access the 20m band at once, but the multiple accesses to the band are done by each user being on his own frequency (Frequency Division). Of course in this case the stronger user on a given frequency and given path effectively has the access to the channel. In CDMA each user uses the full band, at the same âcarrierâ frequency, but each transmitter has a spreading code that is unique. At the receiver, the desired link is âtunedâ by dispreading with the same extra bit sequence as was used at the transmitter to spread. Signals in the bandwidth having different codes will appear to the despread process as random noise, once the wide band signal desired is despread to a narrow band link. On the receive end of a spread link, the rejection of other spreading codes is also applied to any other signal. The dispreading process will spread the energy of an interfering signal over the spread bandwidth. An example: Assume a unspread link of an occupied bandwidth of 10 kHz and a power of 10 watts. This will have a power spectral density of 10 watts per 10 kHz, or 1 watt per kHz, or 1 mw per Hz. Assume this is spread with a 1 Mchip/s digital signal using
[digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Greg is using ROS. I have logged him. Of course he is living in the North West far away from the government. And Graig, I did not suggest an nice older person to go and ask. That were others who wanted it to die. 73 Rein W6sz --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, k...@... wrote: Hear, hear rgrds Craig kq6i -Original Message- From: AA0OI [mailto:aa...@...] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:52 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? HI: I Just have one question... HOW THE HELL OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE ?!! Grow Up, and let it die..You have all stabbed it enought to kill it 20 times over.. The only problem with this mode is that you all have to run and ask Uncle FCC what do we do , what do we do ? If everyone would just shut the hell up and use the mode and not whine like a 12 year old girl, the FCC would not even know that it existed or EVEN CARE !! Ham Radio is AMATEUR RADIO--- NOT PROFESSIONAL...Some of its use is for EXPERIMENTATION (if not we'd all be using spark-gap radios today !!! So THANKS for screwing ROS up for the rest of us that don't need Big Brothers permission to pee in the night.. And next time a new mode comes out... PLEASE just stay the hell away from it and go do something like PSK31or something else that you already have Permission to use from Uncle Government !! Its better to ask forgiveness,, because you'll never get permission and American : Thomas Jefferson Garrett / AA0OI http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/47.gif From: rein...@... rein...@... To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 2:52:47 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? Skip, I have a lot of respect for you and appreciated every time you emailed me. Honest. Went yesterday through all messages on ROSMODEM and got the idea of some anti biases built in here and there. Almost from day in. You have numerous messages about US ROS use and I sense it. Sure I have a bias the other way, difference though, ROS is not my program. Even more interesting as far as Jose goes I might be his biggest enemy in the universe. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: KH6TY kh...@... mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net Sent: Jul 12, 2010 3:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the FCC is not that gullible! The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do. This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of a false FCC approval. I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front of this computer. I hope you understand... 73, Skip KH6TY SK On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote: That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836 Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt digital noise reduction to hf/vhf data modes will stall I note interest in adding the mode to existing software was expressed at a early point in the proceedings ,those asking could see the advantage first hand . (may of been a Homer S DH moment) it looks however now, if this is perhaps not feasible , there is a DDS interface port , but this only connects the MF mode and is in use in France on 137k ,BW issues? MF takes 98 Hz I think Andy is right , some one needs to address the log jam your side of the pond , this not a issue of a local by law , its a cap on technical development , even stone tablets can be recycled these days... G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh6ty@ wrote: Andy, I have been told by a FCC engineer, part of the evaluation group at the FCC, whom I will not name, that ROS 16 baud and 1 baud has been evaluated in the lab and is
[digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Greg is using ROS. I have logged him. Of course he is living in the North West far away from the government. And Graig, I did not suggest an nice older person to go and ask. That were others who wanted it to die. 73 Rein W6sz --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, k...@... wrote: Hear, hear rgrds Craig kq6i -Original Message- From: AA0OI [mailto:aa...@...] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:52 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? HI: I Just have one question... HOW THE HELL OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE ?!! Grow Up, and let it die..You have all stabbed it enought to kill it 20 times over.. The only problem with this mode is that you all have to run and ask Uncle FCC what do we do , what do we do ? If everyone would just shut the hell up and use the mode and not whine like a 12 year old girl, the FCC would not even know that it existed or EVEN CARE !! Ham Radio is AMATEUR RADIO--- NOT PROFESSIONAL...Some of its use is for EXPERIMENTATION (if not we'd all be using spark-gap radios today !!! So THANKS for screwing ROS up for the rest of us that don't need Big Brothers permission to pee in the night.. And next time a new mode comes out... PLEASE just stay the hell away from it and go do something like PSK31or something else that you already have Permission to use from Uncle Government !! Its better to ask forgiveness,, because you'll never get permission and American : Thomas Jefferson Garrett / AA0OI http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/47.gif From: rein...@... rein...@... To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 2:52:47 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? Skip, I have a lot of respect for you and appreciated every time you emailed me. Honest. Went yesterday through all messages on ROSMODEM and got the idea of some anti biases built in here and there. Almost from day in. You have numerous messages about US ROS use and I sense it. Sure I have a bias the other way, difference though, ROS is not my program. Even more interesting as far as Jose goes I might be his biggest enemy in the universe. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: KH6TY kh...@... mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net Sent: Jul 12, 2010 3:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the FCC is not that gullible! The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do. This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of a false FCC approval. I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front of this computer. I hope you understand... 73, Skip KH6TY SK On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote: That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836 Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt digital noise reduction to hf/vhf data modes will stall I note interest in adding the mode to existing software was expressed at a early point in the proceedings ,those asking could see the advantage first hand . (may of been a Homer S DH moment) it looks however now, if this is perhaps not feasible , there is a DDS interface port , but this only connects the MF mode and is in use in France on 137k ,BW issues? MF takes 98 Hz I think Andy is right , some one needs to address the log jam your side of the pond , this not a issue of a local by law , its a cap on technical development , even stone tablets can be recycled these days... G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh6ty@ wrote: Andy, I have been told by a FCC engineer, part of the evaluation group at the FCC, whom I will not name, that ROS 16 baud and 1 baud has been evaluated in the lab and is
Re: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
I have been followed this character Ros from the start. Sorry to say , but I'm not surprised at all . This fits in with his odd but fascinating personality. LA5VNA Steinar On 12.07.2010 23:38, Siegfried Jackstien wrote: I was begging onb my knees that jose will Stopp the autospotting cause that made a lot of trouble I said that we all should stop the adif in a firewall . maybe THAT will bring jose to think But if he has made a decision there is almost no way to change his thoughts I do not know if boycott will help . but stopping adif is boycott on the spots .
[digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Yes, very good presentation and explanation...I actually understood it, well kinda...73, Alan
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
I normally just lurk on this list, but I wanted to jump in and make an important clarification. Mr. Dan Henderson is a paid lawyer ( unusual for ARRL officials ) Enough said here. He is a liaison person for among other organizations, the FCC. He communicates, does not ask questions Dan Henderson, N1ND, is not employed at ARRL Headquarters as an attorney. He is our Regulatory Branch Manager, not an official. (Officials are ARRL corporate officers and Division Directors.) Dan only represents the ARRL in his work, not other organizations. You are probably confusing Dan with Chris Imlay, the ARRL General Counsel. Chris *is* an attorney and represents the ARRL in that capacity before the FCC and in other matters. 73 . . . Steve Ford, WB8IMY ARRL From: Rein A [mailto:rein...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Mon 7/12/2010 6:00 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum Hi Skip, I like to see this ruling revisited by technical personal within the FCC. The FCC, not ARRL. That's all. Mr. Dan Henderson is a paid lawyer ( unusual for ARRL officials ) Enough said here. He is a liaison person for among other organizations, the FCC. He communicates, does not ask questions I do not think and did not think the day it was made, it was done by the right person(s). What is Is is up to the people etc we don't rule on the mode or its content/operation? You and others here promoted the decision as in concrete. I think you and others like it to be so ( just an opinion ) All the stupidity of Jose and now this cluster thing make revisiting harder and harder, if not impossible indeed. If the few of us here who are interested to use ROS had been united and not scared by the please lets move on crowd we could have been able to at least reconsider the situation. Therefore we all should force Jose to fix this and the users outside the US should stop using it. Of course they are mot reading this or even part from this group. Clear and simple 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , KH6TY kh...@... wrote: It was not my idea. The author wanted the FCC to say it was not spread spectrum. Unfortunately for all of us in the US, it is spread spectrum, and the FCC rules do not allow that below 222 MHz. I am not potentially damaging the hobby as a whole, just posting what I know. Go ahead and use ROS if you think you will be legal! You will do more damage to the hobby than anyone who refuses to use it, by flaunting the regulations. 73, Skip KH6TY. On 7/12/2010 1:52 PM, W2XJ wrote: Why do you persist in getting the FCC involved? You are potentially damaging the hobby as a whole. If one is qualified to hold a license the FCC presumes ones ability to determine what operations are legal. On 7/12/10 1:28 PM, KH6TY kh...@... kh...@... wrote: Lester, The inventor has shown over and over that he is not to be trusted, and so his block diagram would not be believed either. I suggested months ago to him to just send his code in confidence to the FCC, which they would keep private, and be done with it. He replied that, arrogantly, The FCC would have to purchase the code from him. To me, that suggests that he is unwilling to disclose the code because it would prove once and for all that it was spread spectrum, and instead, he tried to bluff his way to approval, even by changing his original description of the code as spread spectrum, which obviously did not work. ROS's best advantage, IMHO, is for EME, and it is legal there for US hams for 432 and 1296 EME. I only wish it were legal on 2M also and I could use it for EME on that band. Yes, it should be open-source, and that would end the discussion, but he has (for perhaps devious or commercial) personal reasons for refusing to do so. That is just not going to happen, so let's end the discussion on that note and get on the air instead! 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/12/2010 1:14 PM, Lester Veenstra wrote: Skip: Spectral analysis cannot differentiate between a high rate FEC operating after, as it invariably must, a randomizer, and a true spread spectrum system. And a spread spectrum system does not need to employ frequency hopping. And a signal that frequency hops is not necessarily a spread spectrum signal. I refer you to the old favorite of the UK Diplomatic service, the Piccolo. As I advocated in an earlier post, the way to end this endless discussion would be for the inventor to disclose the block diagram of the various steps in his encoding/modulation system. In fact I was rash enough to suggest that IMHO, all of these systems being played with by hams, should be open sourced, so that, the end user can have some confidence in what he is using, and the state of the art can be mutually advanced. We started
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Jefferson did make that quote. Grace Hopper did: http://thinkexist.com/quotation/it-is-often-easier-to-ask-for-forgiveness-than-to/378343.html The ARRL only quoted the FCC who quoted Jose. Does not seem like anyone in authority opined on ROS software. The FCC cares about what comes out of my radio. Yours too. Doesn't care how it got in the radio. SS is defined in 97.1. Emission types and useage are from about 97.300 to 97.311. The easiest way to get to the Code of Federal Regulations is thru the FAA website. Until somebody can demonstrate to the FCC that it's not SS, it is and restricted as such. Won't be me. Brent, KE4MZ (after long absence, I hope to appear in a few logs again.) - Original Message - From: Rein A rein...@ix.netcom.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 5:10:04 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? Greg is using ROS. I have logged him. Of course he is living in the North West far away from the government. And Graig, I did not suggest an nice older person to go and ask. That were others who wanted it to die. 73 Rein W6sz --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, k...@... wrote: Hear, hear rgrds Craig kq6i -Original Message- From: AA0OI [mailto:aa...@...] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:52 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? HI: I Just have one question... HOW THE HELL OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE ?!! Grow Up, and let it die..You have all stabbed it enought to kill it 20 times over.. The only problem with this mode is that you all have to run and ask Uncle FCC what do we do , what do we do ? If everyone would just shut the hell up and use the mode and not whine like a 12 year old girl, the FCC would not even know that it existed or EVEN CARE !! Ham Radio is AMATEUR RADIO--- NOT PROFESSIONAL...Some of its use is for EXPERIMENTATION (if not we'd all be using spark-gap radios today !!! So THANKS for screwing ROS up for the rest of us that don't need Big Brothers permission to pee in the night.. And next time a new mode comes out... PLEASE just stay the hell away from it and go do something like PSK31or something else that you already have Permission to use from Uncle Government !! Its better to ask forgiveness,, because you'll never get permission and American : Thomas Jefferson Garrett / AA0OI http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/47.gif From: rein...@... rein...@... To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 2:52:47 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? Skip, I have a lot of respect for you and appreciated every time you emailed me. Honest. Went yesterday through all messages on ROSMODEM and got the idea of some anti biases built in here and there. Almost from day in. You have numerous messages about US ROS use and I sense it. Sure I have a bias the other way, difference though, ROS is not my program. Even more interesting as far as Jose goes I might be his biggest enemy in the universe. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: KH6TY kh...@... mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net Sent: Jul 12, 2010 3:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? No, the problem is that the spread spectrum variants are mixed in with the others, all inside the ROS program, so any overall approval of ROS, which undiniably includes the non spread-spectrum modes, would accidentally approve the spread-spectrum modes also. I'm sure that the FCC is not that gullible! The only possible avenue to ever using ROS in the US is to file a petition to modify the regulations, just as everyone else has to do. This is the official procedure and I am sure the FCC is not interested in any re-evaluation of ROS, given what has happened and the posting of a false FCC approval. I am tired of all this Graham, so please forgive me if I do not reply any longer to these questions. I have enough to do to keep up with kit orders for my July QST interface and no time to constantly sit in front of this computer. I hope you understand... 73, Skip KH6TY SK On 7/12/2010 10:26 AM, graham787 wrote: That might be a way , what about the MF stations , could they not ask evaluate the MF mode ? There is even a petition for a new band to be allocated 70 MHz (not so new this side) so the process is available. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fourmetres/message/2836 Surely with the advertised technical base , it could be suggested by some one, the 'spirit' of the clause is now compromised by modern technology , and is no longer a valid point, as any attempt to adapt digital noise
[digitalradio] Re: for Sigi omly
Sigi, Why not bring your self not using it for a few days? I know takes courage and self dicipline. Hard to muster these days. And Sigi, we should move this discussion away from here. It is a non issue in the US. ROS is indeed dead here since the middle of March. Somebody said it is illegal and that is enough for many, these days. One is going around in circles and so real answers are being provided if one is thinking to get some where we always get the being bored, lets move on crowd on the scene. Rosmodem site will go over in other hands with I hope not the anti participation. Try the boycott and you will see he will give in, too much pride to let it go down in smoke what is sure when it gets known in wider circles. No need to go on your knees, do not use it, ask CO2CD. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de Sent: Jul 12, 2010 5:38 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? I was begging onb my knees that jose will Stopp the autospotting cause that made a lot of trouble I said that we all should stop the adif in a firewall . maybe THAT will bring jose to think But if he has made a decision there is almost no way to change his thoughts I do not know if boycott will help . but stopping adif is boycott on the spots .
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Hi Steve, I was told this by a Section Manager. So what can I say. Have not been at HQ for at least 10 yesrs. The statement about ROS did not impress me as being pro radio amateur. For me it was a passive transfer of information. He was the spokesman for the ARRL. There are very diverse opinions about this ruling, That much I know about it. But he see that seldom expressed here, forget about discussing it on his technical merits. ( you just wanted to let us ( me ) know about Mr Henderson I do not know Mr Hendersson, and had felt better if one of the lab people or Mr. Summer had gotten involved. Again and again if is it said We don't classify, if the painter calls it a dog and it looks like a cat, then we still call it a dog. It up to the viewer to determine what it is. However, if he or she says it a cat , it violates the law. How more crazy can it get? Steve, what does this really has to do with this case? I am sorry. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Ford, Steve, WB8IMY sf...@arrl.org Sent: Jul 12, 2010 6:42 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum I normally just lurk on this list, but I wanted to jump in and make an important clarification. Mr. Dan Henderson is a paid lawyer ( unusual for ARRL officials ) Enough said here. He is a liaison person for among other organizations, the FCC. He communicates, does not ask questions Dan Henderson, N1ND, is not employed at ARRL Headquarters as an attorney. He is our Regulatory Branch Manager, not an official. (Officials are ARRL corporate officers and Division Directors.) Dan only represents the ARRL in his work, not other organizations. You are probably confusing Dan with Chris Imlay, the ARRL General Counsel. Chris *is* an attorney and represents the ARRL in that capacity before the FCC and in other matters. 73 . . . Steve Ford, WB8IMY ARRL From: Rein A [mailto:rein...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Mon 7/12/2010 6:00 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum Hi Skip, I like to see this ruling revisited by technical personal within the FCC. The FCC, not ARRL. That's all. Mr. Dan Henderson is a paid lawyer ( unusual for ARRL officials ) Enough said here. He is a liaison person for among other organizations, the FCC. He communicates, does not ask questions I do not think and did not think the day it was made, it was done by the right person(s). What is Is is up to the people etc we don't rule on the mode or its content/operation? You and others here promoted the decision as in concrete. I think you and others like it to be so ( just an opinion ) All the stupidity of Jose and now this cluster thing make revisiting harder and harder, if not impossible indeed. If the few of us here who are interested to use ROS had been united and not scared by the please lets move on crowd we could have been able to at least reconsider the situation. Therefore we all should force Jose to fix this and the users outside the US should stop using it. Of course they are mot reading this or even part from this group. Clear and simple 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , KH6TY kh...@... wrote: It was not my idea. The author wanted the FCC to say it was not spread spectrum. Unfortunately for all of us in the US, it is spread spectrum, and the FCC rules do not allow that below 222 MHz. I am not potentially damaging the hobby as a whole, just posting what I know. Go ahead and use ROS if you think you will be legal! You will do more damage to the hobby than anyone who refuses to use it, by flaunting the regulations. 73, Skip KH6TY. On 7/12/2010 1:52 PM, W2XJ wrote: Why do you persist in getting the FCC involved? You are potentially damaging the hobby as a whole. If one is qualified to hold a license the FCC presumes ones ability to determine what operations are legal. On 7/12/10 1:28 PM, KH6TY kh...@... kh...@... wrote: Lester, The inventor has shown over and over that he is not to be trusted, and so his block diagram would not be believed either. I suggested months ago to him to just send his code in confidence to the FCC, which they would keep private, and be done with it. He replied that, arrogantly, The FCC would have to purchase the code from him. To me, that suggests that he is unwilling to disclose the code because it would prove once and for all that it was spread spectrum, and instead, he tried to bluff his way to approval, even by changing his original description of the code as spread spectrum, which obviously did not work. ROS's best advantage, IMHO, is for EME, and it is legal there for US hams for 432 and 1296 EME. I only wish it were legal on 2M also and I could use it for EME on that band. Yes, it should be open-source, and that would end
Re: [digitalradio] Contestia Digital Mode Freqs
MixW has a contestia.dll, but not (yet) RSIDand the usual mode is 250/4. 73´s Good DX !! Oscar Lama - CX1CW MSN: oscar_l...@hotmail.com MSN: cx...@hotmail.com RGS#1300 EPC#7536 30MDG#2645 FD#2519 - Original Message - From: mikea To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Contestia Digital Mode Freqs On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:49:43AM -0400, Thomas F. Giella NZ4O wrote: Contestia is one of the few mainstream digital modes that I have not worked. Where should I look for QSO's frequency wise? Just above the PSK crowd, generally. I've seen them intermixed with Olivia and other multitone modes -- so much so that I had to switch from MIXW to DM780 just so I could decode the mode-ID sequence and see what was what. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mi...@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Well I started out life as a Physicist, but had to specialize to find real work HI Lester B Veenstra MØYCM K1YCM mailto:les...@veenstras.com les...@veenstras.com mailto:m0...@veenstras.com m0...@veenstras.com mailto:k1...@veenstras.com k1...@veenstras.com US Postal Address: PSC 45 Box 781 APO AE 09468 USA UK Postal Address: Dawn Cottage Norwood, Harrogate HG3 1SD, UK Telephones: Office: +44-(0)1423-846-385 Home: +44-(0)1943-880-963 Guam Cell: +1-671-788-5654 UK Cell: +44-(0)7716-298-224 US Cell: +1-240-425-7335 Jamaica: +1-876-352-7504 This e-mail and any documents attached hereto contain confidential or privileged information. The information is intended to be for use only by the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail or any documents attached hereto is prohibited. From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul W. Ross Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 11:29 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum THAT was an EXCELLENT presentation! THANKS! (and EE and Computer Scientist in an earlier life) /paul W3FIS
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
So the question I closed with; Where did I QSB into the noise. How could I improve. I think understanding the fundamentals will take out a lot of the hocus pocus about some systems, and if we had more open source systems, let the community mind advance the state of the art. Lester B Veenstra MØYCM K1YCM mailto:les...@veenstras.com les...@veenstras.com mailto:m0...@veenstras.com m0...@veenstras.com mailto:k1...@veenstras.com k1...@veenstras.com US Postal Address: PSC 45 Box 781 APO AE 09468 USA UK Postal Address: Dawn Cottage Norwood, Harrogate HG3 1SD, UK Telephones: Office: +44-(0)1423-846-385 Home: +44-(0)1943-880-963 Guam Cell: +1-671-788-5654 UK Cell: +44-(0)7716-298-224 US Cell: +1-240-425-7335 Jamaica: +1-876-352-7504 This e-mail and any documents attached hereto contain confidential or privileged information. The information is intended to be for use only by the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail or any documents attached hereto is prohibited. From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alan Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 11:36 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum Yes, very good presentation and explanation...I actually understood it, well kinda...73, Alan
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
SS is defined in 97.1. ??? --- TITLE 47 - TELECOMMUNICATION CHAPTER I - FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION SUBCHAPTER D - SAFETY AND SPECIAL RADIO SERVICES PART 97 - AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE subpart a - GENERAL PROVISIONS 97.1 - Basis and purpose. The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles: (a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications. (b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art. (c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of the art. (d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts. (e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance international goodwill. _ Read more: http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/97-1-basis-and-purpose-19857102#ixzz0tXP5hN2q http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/97-1-basis-and-purpose-19857102#ixzz0tXP5hN2q Lester B Veenstra MØYCM K1YCM mailto:les...@veenstras.com les...@veenstras.com mailto:m0...@veenstras.com m0...@veenstras.com mailto:k1...@veenstras.com k1...@veenstras.com US Postal Address: PSC 45 Box 781 APO AE 09468 USA UK Postal Address: Dawn Cottage Norwood, Harrogate HG3 1SD, UK Telephones: Office: +44-(0)1423-846-385 Home: +44-(0)1943-880-963 Guam Cell: +1-671-788-5654 UK Cell: +44-(0)7716-298-224 US Cell: +1-240-425-7335 Jamaica: +1-876-352-7504 This e-mail and any documents attached hereto contain confidential or privileged information. The information is intended to be for use only by the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail or any documents attached hereto is prohibited. From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bg...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 11:49 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? SS is defined in 97.1. ..Brent, KE4MZ ___
