Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Just keep the FCC out of this. They do will not deal with such issues. If pushed, the out come will not be pretty. This was discussed at Dayton a few years out. Basically we either self police or risk extinction. On 7/12/10 5:00 PM, Rein A rein...@ix.netcom.com 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
[digitalradio] Dual ALE 400 and Winmor Server Station de K3UK
I'm experimenting again. I have a full time (24/7) HF Winklink-Winmor server as previously announced, using several different bands during the day. I have also configured an ALE 400 stations to operate the same frequencies at the same times as the Winmor server. What does this do ? Well, the Winmor server provides the usual role of email in/out via Winlink and, rather selfishly, ALE400 provides an opportunity to work me key-board to keyboard , if needed. So, if you are looking to work me, the ALE station will respond IF I am in the shack. Call ID is active too, so I can log any call IDs on the frequencies. I may periodically ( and manually) sound via ALE 400 . The Winmor server will not respond if the frequency is busy, and the ALE 400 station will NOT have auto-answer enabled. So, I should have the normal courteous operator procedures in place. 24 hours per day, the current schedule for K3UK is to 0859 UTC 7103 (dial) 0900 to 0959 UTC 3583 (dial) 1000 to 1259 UTC 7103 (dial) 1300-to 1759 UTC 14110 (dial) 1800 to 2059 UTC 28125 (dial) 2100 to 2359 UTC 14110 (dial) All frequencies are USB. So, if you want to experiment with different modes, call me KB to KB via ALE400. If you have traffic to pass, use the Winmor server via RMS Express software. Andy K3UK
[digitalradio] Re: ROS
Why hasn't this subject died, like the mode itself? The developer has said he won't develop it any more, so ROS (the mode) is dead. The fact that someone wants to take over a website makes no difference unless the source code for the mode is also handed over so that development can also continue, including perhaps incorporation of the mode into the open software like DM780 and Fldigi. Do you really want to continue promoting a mode which, unless the above occurs, will always be an outsider never able to be given or use its own distinctive RSID and therefore always the cause of confusion wherever it is used? We should be glad that it is over and leave it to rest in peace. If ROS proved anything of interest from a technical point of view, someone else will eventually develop an alternative, hopefully in an open and non-confrontational manner. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, rein...@... wrote: 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.
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS
Hi Julian, Why hasn't this subject died, like the mode itself? The developer has said he won't develop it any more, so ROS (the mode) is dead. The fact that someone wants to take over a website makes no difference unless the source code for the mode is also handed over so that development can also continue, including perhaps incorporation of the mode into the open software like DM780 and Fldigi. Do you really want to continue promoting a mode which, unless the above occurs, will always be an outsider never able to be given or use its own distinctive RSID and therefore always the cause of confusion wherever it is used? We should be glad that it is over and leave it to rest in peace. If ROS proved anything of interest from a technical point of view, someone else will eventually develop an alternative, hopefully in an open and non-confrontational manner. Julian, G4ILO I think you are right. I wish I had more time to devote to programming so I could participate on such a project but, well, it is not that way right now. I don't know if any other person in this Group has talked with Mr. Ros, as I did a month or so ago, in a local ham meeting (2010 EA-QRP meeting in Sinarcas). As I saw it, there was no way he would allow to get other people involved in the development nor getting any other feedback that the one in the blog and by e-mail (yes, there was a recently founded official ROS group but activity was lacking). So it was difficult to have a long-run development certainty. All in all, if someone wants to start from scratch with a similar mode, it would be fine... but, of course, the SS question remains on air. Well, let's enjoy any other of the multiple digital modes available! See you on my PC ;-) Best regards, JOSE -- 73 EB5AGV - JOSE V. GAVILA - IM99sm La Canyada - Valencia(SPAIN) Vintage Radio and Test Equipment... http://jvgavila.com RadioRepair BLOG... http://radiorepair.blogspot.com
Re: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
The FCC never said anything that was a commitment. A staff member wrote a very non committal letter basically hoping you would go away. This FCC stuff is silly. On 7/12/10 5:33 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: 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
[digitalradio] Re: ROS
someone else will eventually develop an alternative, hopefully in an open and non-confrontational manner. Thats the whole point .. no one will, as no one can (in the usa) use it under the catch 220 clause .. even the established ss modes cannot be used now , after this fiasco , another example of trying to legislate round existing technology and not by guide lines , the latest was the EU 500 allocation , defining telegraphy in a maximum bandwidth of 100 Hz , expecting CW only to be used , where as the definition of Telegraphy is actually message transfer not method `of' transfer and now data is used as well G . --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, g4ilo jul...@... wrote: Why hasn't this subject died, like the mode itself? The developer has said he won't develop it any more, so ROS (the mode) is dead. The fact that someone wants to take over a website makes no difference unless the source code for the mode is also handed over so that development can also continue, including perhaps incorporation of the mode into the open software like DM780 and Fldigi. Do you really want to continue promoting a mode which, unless the above occurs, will always be an outsider never able to be given or use its own distinctive RSID and therefore always the cause of confusion wherever it is used? We should be glad that it is over and leave it to rest in peace. If ROS proved anything of interest from a technical point of view, someone else will eventually develop an alternative, hopefully in an open and non-confrontational manner. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, rein0zn@ wrote: 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.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
sorry, my typo. It's in 97.3. (b)(9) - Original Message - From: Lester Veenstra les...@veenstras.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:38:40 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: 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 Lester B Veenstra MØYCM K1YCM les...@veenstras.com m0...@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 ___
Re: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Hello W2XJ. YOU are a man to my heart, You got it right on. I have tried to make that point from the day it happened. Commitment - consequences far beyond some silly ham radio stuff Commitees, study groups, legal advisors etc etc Poor Agent, what ever his or hers number was! 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: W2XJ w...@w2xj.net Sent: Jul 12, 2010 6:24 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? The FCC never said anything that was a commitment. A staff member wrote a very non committal letter basically hoping you would go away. This FCC stuff is silly. On 7/12/10 5:33 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: 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] Re: ROS
Julian If Jose does not fix the generation of these spam messages, the method will disappear. If he fixes it, seems unlikely, the people who are using it now, will keep on using it and it will grow. I just wonder how many here in this group actually have used ROS, or, are able to receive with it, or are following ROS activity. Up to the time that we found about these reporting practices it was quite popular in your part of the world in particular. [[ I don't invite messages informing me how stupid and/or dangerous it is to do that! ]] I use a computer here linked to a WEBSDR and hear pings around the clock. The spam issue might change or probably will change this, unless it is being fixed. IF Mr ROS Want his method to die, he should leave it as it is. It is in his hands ( IMHO ) 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com Sent: Jul 13, 2010 6:04 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Why hasn't this subject died, like the mode itself? The developer has said he won't develop it any more, so ROS (the mode) is dead. The fact that someone wants to take over a website makes no difference unless the source code for the mode is also handed over so that development can also continue, including perhaps incorporation of the mode into the open software like DM780 and Fldigi. Do you really want to continue promoting a mode which, unless the above occurs, will always be an outsider never able to be given or use its own distinctive RSID and therefore always the cause of confusion wherever it is used? We should be glad that it is over and leave it to rest in peace. If ROS proved anything of interest from a technical point of view, someone else will eventually develop an alternative, hopefully in an open and non-confrontational manner. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, rein...@... wrote: 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. http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS
If one was to just disconnect from the net would the program later try to post? It seems that this is the main concern of many? John, W0JAB EM49lk
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS
That, and the fact that if you believe the author's original description of ROS that it uses spread spectrum, then it's not legal in the US on bands lower than 220. What's frustrating about the FCC rule is that ROS appears to use a relatively narrow band form of frequency hopping spread spectrum, so while the FCC prohibition of FHSS below 220 might be defensible for the original wider bandwidth SS, it becomes much harder to defend in the case of ROS. In fact, I don't remember reading any posts on any email lists that believe the current rule (with a blanket prohibition of all forms of SS) makes sense. But, right now at least, that's the rule in the US. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:40 AM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS If one was to just disconnect from the net would the program later try to post? It seems that this is the main concern of many? John, W0JAB EM49lk
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
graham787 wrote: 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. While I do not support ROS in any form, I think the group is on a very slippery slope here with well intentioned but misinformed definitions tests that may haunt us in the future! Just the fact that data is randomized does not define SS. There has to be a spreading factor, which has some rough definitions based on practical applications, but is not addressed in any FCC definitions. Skip's well intentioned but overly simplistic test of looking at the bit stream is not enough to define SS. There are many legitimate reasons to code data resulting in a pseudo-random fashion that have nothing to do with SS! The most common is coding so the transitions between bit's can easily be detected even in noise. It's a problem when sequential bits look the same. You can also factor in FEC. There are many, many writeups on convolutional encoding that go into this. (Viterbi reed-solomon are in wide usage) But it's also useful to spread the energy out in the bandwidth and avoid sidebands created by single tones of long duration. There are multiple modem/modes which do this, some in very wide usage. So yes, SS (really DSSS) is pseudo-random. But not all pseudo-random coding is SS, and we should not be proposing that as a litmus test! The real test should be: - direct or BPSK modulation via a pseudo-random code in addition to any coding for FEC (convolutional, etc) - A spreading factor significantly higher than the original data rate The 2nd item is the key part, and it's listed but virtually never quoted in this group, but is listed in nearly all the SS definitions. Nor is it addressed in the FCC part 97 rules. It's not enough that the bandwidth is higher than the data rate would imply, as nearly all modes with FEC would fail that by definition. The key is the significantly wider aspect, also referred to in ITU/IEEE definitions as typically orders of magnitude greater than the data rate. And this is why many engineers question whether any SSB generated mode could be real SS. ROS only did it by having the original data rate lower than the SSB bandwidth. About the lowest commercial DSSS implementations use a spreading factor of 16:1, and that's for consumer grade without noise performance concerns. Most DSSS implementations in the real world use spreading factors of 100 or greater, as that's when you start seeing significant noise recovery improvements. In DSSS, the processor gain which improves noise resilience is directly related to the spreading factor. I've posted multiple definitions from the ITU IEEE in the past for DSSS. Wikipedia, which has some good information, does not constitute a formal definition like the ITU IEEE references do. (Part of the reason that wikipedia is not admissible as sources for college research papers). There is no shortage of formal definitions, we should not have to invent our own. There are also some very readable definitions from mfg's for their DSSS components. Like this one: http://www.maxim-ic.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/1890 So ROS (RIP) is very odd in this aspect, as it's nowhere near conventional DSSS implementations in it's spreading factor, yet is higher than the spreading seen by FEC convolutional encoding. This is a constraint of the AFSK/SSB encoding, but does pose some questions as to how it should be treated. In all the discussion of SS, bandwidth, etc, everyone is missing the point that DSSS wider bandwidth usage is offset by use of CDMA. (collision detection multiple access). DSSS is nearly always used with many stations on the same channel with the same key. It's no accident that cellular went from analog techniques to DSSS. it maximizes use of their spectrum! So the idea of ROS having multiple net frequencies is just silly, all ROS stations should be using the same frequency! For that matter, so should most of our advanced modes including winmor, ALE, etc. And we have to factor in the fact that multiple stations could/should be using the same spectrum when you examine bandwidth of DSSS. Set aside all the unprofessional behavior by the pro anti ROS contingents... I believe ROS as implemented did not offer enough processing gain to justify usage on crowded bands like 40m. But I think we hams lost an opportunity to experiment with new modes that had promise in the way the ARRL/FCC
[digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions
§ 97.3 Definitions. (b) The definitions of technical symbols used in this part are: (9) UHF (ultra-high frequency). The frequency range 300–3000 MHz. -- § 97.3 Definitions. (c) The following terms are used in this part to indicate emission types. Refer to § 2.201 of the FCC Rules, Emission, modulation and transmission characteristics, for information on emission type designators. (8) SS. Spread spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. § 2.201 Emission, modulation, and transmission characteristics. The following system of designating emission, modulation, and transmission characteristics shall be employed. (a) Emissions are designated according to their classification and their necessary bandwidth. (b) A minimum of three symbols are used to describe the basic characteristics of radio waves. Emissions are classified and symbolized according to the following characteristics: (1) First symbol—type of modulation of the main character; (2) Second symbol—nature of signal( s) modulating the main carrier; (3) Third symbol—type of information to be transmitted. (c) First Symbol—types of modulation of the main carrier: (2) Emission in which the main carrier is amplitude-modulated (including cases where sub-carriers are angle-modulated):. —Double-sideband ... A —Single-sideband, full carrier . H —Single-sideband, reduced or variable level carrier R —Single-sideband, suppressed carrier .. J —Vestigial sideband C (3) Emission in which the main carrier is angle-modulated:. —Frequency modulation . F —Phase modulation . G NOTE: Whenever frequency modulation ‘‘F’’ is indicated, Phase modulation ‘‘G’’ is also acceptable. (4) Emission in which the main carrier is amplitude and anglemodulated either simultaneously or in a pre-established sequence .. D 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: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:52 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? sorry, my typo. It's in 97.3. (b)(9)
AW: [digitalradio] Re: ROS
No . just block adif exe in a firewall and everything is fine You can use the soft with or without email but without spotting is only possible when using a firewall The soft does not spot later . think you have no inet at home today. tomorrow you get inet . if now the soft would spot later there were hundreds of spots (of no need cause from yesterday) so the soft sends right on time (or is quiet) Hope I could help sigi
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Hi Alan, Why did you wait so long with contributing here? Please explain. ++ In Feb of this year I quoted from the ARRL's Spread Spectrum Source book page 5-2 ++ Spread Spectrum Fundamentals SS systems employ radio frequency bandwidths that greatly exceed the bandwidth necessary to convey the intelligence. Bandwidths for SS systems generally run from 10 to 100 times the information rate. etc etc. I got shouted out of the Group by addressing the use of ROS in the US by the experts on SS. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Alan Barrow ml9...@pinztrek.com Sent: Jul 13, 2010 1:22 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum graham787 wrote: 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. While I do not support ROS in any form, I think the group is on a very slippery slope here with well intentioned but misinformed definitions tests that may haunt us in the future! Just the fact that data is randomized does not define SS. There has to be a spreading factor, which has some rough definitions based on practical applications, but is not addressed in any FCC definitions. Skip's well intentioned but overly simplistic test of looking at the bit stream is not enough to define SS. There are many legitimate reasons to code data resulting in a pseudo-random fashion that have nothing to do with SS! The most common is coding so the transitions between bit's can easily be detected even in noise. It's a problem when sequential bits look the same. You can also factor in FEC. There are many, many writeups on convolutional encoding that go into this. (Viterbi reed-solomon are in wide usage) But it's also useful to spread the energy out in the bandwidth and avoid sidebands created by single tones of long duration. There are multiple modem/modes which do this, some in very wide usage. So yes, SS (really DSSS) is pseudo-random. But not all pseudo-random coding is SS, and we should not be proposing that as a litmus test! The real test should be: - direct or BPSK modulation via a pseudo-random code in addition to any coding for FEC (convolutional, etc) - A spreading factor significantly higher than the original data rate The 2nd item is the key part, and it's listed but virtually never quoted in this group, but is listed in nearly all the SS definitions. Nor is it addressed in the FCC part 97 rules. It's not enough that the bandwidth is higher than the data rate would imply, as nearly all modes with FEC would fail that by definition. The key is the significantly wider aspect, also referred to in ITU/IEEE definitions as typically orders of magnitude greater than the data rate. And this is why many engineers question whether any SSB generated mode could be real SS. ROS only did it by having the original data rate lower than the SSB bandwidth. About the lowest commercial DSSS implementations use a spreading factor of 16:1, and that's for consumer grade without noise performance concerns. Most DSSS implementations in the real world use spreading factors of 100 or greater, as that's when you start seeing significant noise recovery improvements. In DSSS, the processor gain which improves noise resilience is directly related to the spreading factor. I've posted multiple definitions from the ITU IEEE in the past for DSSS. Wikipedia, which has some good information, does not constitute a formal definition like the ITU IEEE references do. (Part of the reason that wikipedia is not admissible as sources for college research papers). There is no shortage of formal definitions, we should not have to invent our own. There are also some very readable definitions from mfg's for their DSSS components. Like this one: http://www.maxim-ic.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/1890 So ROS (RIP) is very odd in this aspect, as it's nowhere near conventional DSSS implementations in it's spreading factor, yet is higher than the spreading seen by FEC convolutional encoding. This is a constraint of the AFSK/SSB encoding, but does pose some questions as to how it should be treated. In all the discussion of SS, bandwidth, etc, everyone is missing the point that DSSS wider bandwidth usage is offset by use of CDMA. (collision detection multiple access). DSSS is nearly always used with many stations on the same channel with the same key. It's no accident that
[digitalradio] OT?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/13/consumer-reports-iphone-4_n_644107.html 73 Rein W6SZ
[digitalradio] Re: OT II ? ROS activity from HAMspots
16:52 UTC http://hamspots.net/ros/ 73 Rein W6SZ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Rein, I said I would not comment further on ROS, but look at it in perspective. The author defined ROS as spread spectrum and produced a two page document to that effect. He is the only one who knows for sure if it is spread spectrum or not. When it was posted that spread spectrum was not legal below 222 Mhz, he conveniently (for his benefit) tried to redefine ROS as FSK, in an apparent attempt to change the FCC opinion, which originally was based on his own two-page declaration, which he wanted us to believe. The FCC then made their own analysis and concluded it was not FSK but truly spread spectrum. This was communicated to us by the ARRL as is usually the case. The author, if he would have disclosed his code, could have proven whether or not the randomization is for spread spectrum purposes or for some other reason, but he steadfastly refused to disclose the code, which would either have resulted in it being OK for us to use, or prove it was truly FHSS. Perhaps he decided to try and bluff the FCC because it would be determined, on the basis of his code, to really be FHSS, in agreement with his first description, and in disagreement with the second description he wrote, obviously just to try to get approval. It is just not reasonable to think that a person of his ability, as the author of the software, could make such a huge mistake in his first characterization of ROS as spread spectrum and then completely revise the characterization as something else which he knew would be usable by US hams. You can imagine how the FCC feels about that attempted deception, and to top it off, he posts a phoney statement of FCC approval besides! I seriously doubt that the FCC is going to want to revisit the question, since the author simply cannot be believed. I met Dan Henderson at a hamfest right after all this happened and he had been in contact the FCC, and opined that it was highly doubtful that any further reconsideration would be done. The ONLY way for us to ever use ROS on HF is to petition the FCC to amend the rules to allow limited spread spectrum below 222 Mhz, citing enough good reasons why it will not harm existing operations of lesser bandwidth. Instead of constantly arguing that the FCC made a mistake, or we should interpret the rules as we wish they were, I suggest that either a petition be filed, or the code released to prove the author's contention that it is not spread spectrum. Of course the submitted code would have to be recompiled and tested to prove it is really the original code, and another attempted deception by the author. Understand that I am NOT against ROS, and never have been, even though I strongly dislike the author's behavior and suspect his motives. I would keep using it on HF if it were legal for me to do so. I do respect the FCC regulations, even those that I do not like, and follow them as best I can, because in the overall picture, they protect the weak from the strong for the benefit of everyone, until revised in a non-harmful way. This will be my (final) final word on this subject, so please do not ask me to comment any further. If you want to use ROS on HF, then enter a petition to get the regulations changed so you can, or work with someone else who will do that for you, and end this endless denigrating of the FCC, ARRL, and others who follow the regulations and depend upon ARRL interpretations of the FCC regulations for us all. Signing off on ROS now - 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/13/2010 2:23 PM, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Hi Alan, Why did you wait so long with contributing here? Please explain. ++ In Feb of this year I quoted from the ARRL's Spread Spectrum Source book page 5-2 ++ Spread Spectrum Fundamentals SS systems employ radio frequency bandwidths that greatly exceed the bandwidth necessary to convey the intelligence. Bandwidths for SS systems generally run from 10 to 100 times the information rate. etc etc. I got shouted out of the Group by addressing the use of ROS in the US by the experts on SS. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Alan Barrow ml9...@pinztrek.com mailto:ml9003%40pinztrek.com Sent: Jul 13, 2010 1:22 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum graham787 wrote: 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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
I think that a lot of people are missing the point with ROS and Spread Spectrum here in the US. The author defined it as Spread Spectrum, only changing it to FSK144 (or whatever) after being told that SS was not allowed below 1.25m in the US. The FCC rules don't mention bandwidth in relationship to SS, they don't say that it must employ bandwidths that greatly exceed the bandwidth necessary to convey the intelligence, nor do they reference any Wikipedia/ARRL/RSGB/ITU or other organization's definition. They simply mention SS as not being allowed below 1.25m. So, you can say that it is only 2.2kHz in bandwidth, but if it is spread spectrum within that 2.2kHz of bandwidth, it is illegal in the US below 1.2m. It could be 500Hz in bandwidth, but if it uses SS, then it is illegal. Is this the way it should be? No. Does it impede innovation and development of new modes? Yes. However, the way the rule is written is what we have to follow. Don't like it? Then petition the FCC to modify part 97 to allow SS within a limited bandwidth (say 3 kHz). As Skip has pointed out, there is a way to do this without mentioning ROS (or CHIP64/128) or any other SS mode. Quote the definition and petition for a modification, possibly with a bandwidth restriction, possibly without. But, without changing the rule, the rest of the discussion is moot. Dave K3DCW On Jul 13, 2010, at 2:23 PM, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Hi Alan, Why did you wait so long with contributing here? Please explain. ++ In Feb of this year I quoted from the ARRL's Spread Spectrum Source book page 5-2 ++ Spread Spectrum Fundamentals SS systems employ radio frequency bandwidths that greatly exceed the bandwidth necessary to convey the intelligence. Bandwidths for SS systems generally run from 10 to 100 times the information rate. etc etc. I got shouted out of the Group by addressing the use of ROS in the US by the experts on SS. Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net
Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions
sorry, the fine print is giving me fits. It's obviously 97.3 (c)(9). I'm thinking another reason for the restrictions - SS is also a very good means of encryption. The previous rules on SS required use of a particular type of SS and the key number was specified in the rule.. Probably in a pre 1999 ARRL rule book , if anyone really needed to look. There might exist a method of finding old versions of the CFR online, but I have not looked. - Original Message - From: Lester Veenstra les...@veenstras.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:26:57 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions § 97.3 Definitions. (b) The definitions of technical symbols used in this part are: (9) UHF (ultra-high frequency). The frequency range 300–3000 MHz. -- § 97.3 Definitions. (c) The following terms are used in this part to indicate emission types. Refer to § 2.201 of the FCC Rules, Emission, modulation and transmission characteristics, for information on emission type designators. (8) SS. Spread spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. § 2.201 Emission, modulation, and transmission characteristics. The following system of designating emission, modulation, and transmission characteristics shall be employed. (a) Emissions are designated according to their classification and their necessary bandwidth. (b) A minimum of three symbols are used to describe the basic characteristics of radio waves. Emissions are classified and symbolized according to the following characteristics: (1) First symbol—type of modulation of the main character; (2) Second symbol—nature of signal( s) modulating the main carrier; (3) Third symbol—type of information to be transmitted. (c) First Symbol—types of modulation of the main carrier: (2) Emission in which the main carrier is amplitude-modulated (including cases where sub-carriers are angle-modulated):. —Double-sideband ... A —Single-sideband, full carrier . H —Single-sideband, reduced or variable level carrier R —Single-sideband, suppressed carrier .. J —Vestigial sideband C (3) Emission in which the main carrier is angle-modulated:. —Frequency modulation . F —Phase modulation . G N OTE : Whenever frequency modulation ‘‘F’’ is indicated, Phase modulation ‘‘G’’ is also acceptable. (4) Emission in which the main carrier is amplitude and anglemodulated either simultaneously or in a pre-established sequence .. D Lester B Veenstra MØYCM K1YCM les...@veenstras.com m0...@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: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:52 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? sorry, my typo. It's in 97.3. (b)(9)
AW: [digitalradio] Re: OT II ? ROS activity from HAMspots
Hope that we found all email adresses from the spotters to inform them what is going on in their pc ..
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
There's the generally accepted definition of SS, quoted below and referring to bandwidths greatly exceeding what's necessary, and then there's the way the FCC regs are written, which do not refer to that definition. I think just about everyone, or maybe absolutely everyone who cares about the FCC regs, thinks in this case they are inappropriate, but the fact is, they do not allow for narrow-band SS, even though it would cause no real harm. The regs should be changed, but until they are, we in the US can not use SS below 220, or we can move to another country, or we can violate the regs, and/or we can campaign to change them. But saying you don't agree with a law so you don't have to follow it is not the right way. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: rein...@ix.netcom.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:23 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum Hi Alan, Why did you wait so long with contributing here? Please explain. ++ In Feb of this year I quoted from the ARRL's Spread Spectrum Source book page 5-2 ++ Spread Spectrum Fundamentals SS systems employ radio frequency bandwidths that greatly exceed the bandwidth necessary to convey the intelligence. Bandwidths for SS systems generally run from 10 to 100 times the information rate. etc etc. I got shouted out of the Group by addressing the use of ROS in the US by the experts on SS. 73 Rein W6SZ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Hi Alan, Why did you wait so long with contributing here? Please explain. Hello Rein, I've posted on this subject several times in the past with ITU IEEE references as well. It does seem to get lost in the noise at times. It does not help at all that the ROS author was doing much to incite hatred toward the mode, which unfortunately flows over to anything that looks/smells like ROS. (Specifically SS'ish type modes) The most problematic aspects are the way the whole dialog about ROS as handled are: - Overly simplistic tests/definitions on an already poorly defined (from FCC reg perspective) mode - Simplistic bandwidth comparisons that do not factor in total throughput. (IE: The effect of processor gain, FEC, etc). I don't think ROS was stellar here, but the idea that a wider mode for X data rate is worse than a narrower mode is flawed. Otherwise we'd all be using RTTY. FEC increases bandwidth for the same data rate, but the trade off surfaces over sustained measurement in real (difficult) HF conditions. Skip's work did show there was not a big win for ROS, so we arrived at the right spot. But many were banning just because it was wider than their favorite mode! - Lack of consideration that multiple SS signals could occupy the same spectrum, effectively decreasing the total required bandwidth. There is a point of diminishing returns, and ROS may not fare well. But if I could stack a dozen or more data signals simultaneously in a single SSB width slot, would that be a bad thing? Or what if a AF type SS (AFSS?) mode could live on a non-interference basis, should it be banned just because it was technically SS? No testing was done that I'm aware of that would have allowed real world throughput to be measured with multiple signals on the same channel. This is one of the big wins of DSSS! - Assumption that the current FCC reg is the end all. It was accurate for state of the art when added. But no one foresaw that DSP's would allow an audio based SS implementation inside a SSB bandwidth. The FCC reg was written to address the then current DSSS modems which used spreading factors of 100x with direct IF injection, etc. And are totally inappropriate for HF usage. Put another way, most professional RF engineers would consider any audio based scheme to not be DSSS as it's just not how it's done. Pretty much all real world DSSS systems use IF level modulation to the point that it's one of the main identifying characteristics. - Very inappropriate involvement of the FCC. This is absolutely not the way to approach a new mode, the answer is nearly always check the regs. One thing we can probably all agree on is that ROS is pretty much dead for consideration in the US. The waters are too muddied at this point. I'm more concerned about impact to the next innovation. And the fact that all the noise behavior set aside, the author did implement something new that should have been evaluated on it's merits before declared illegal via trial by yahoogroup. (Before he hastened it's demise due to his own unprofessional behavior). Personally, this episode just cements my believe that the US will be trapped using legacy modes arcane restrictions for the most part until some form of bandwidth based bandplan approach is implemented like much of the civilized world. Lest we crow about some of the more recent innovations, we have to factor in that rtty still rules the airwaves from a number of users and usage perspective. And it's about as inefficient a mode we could come up with when impact to the spectrum is factored in. (medium power, wide sidebands, single user per channel, etc). Call me when there is a weekend with as many PSK signals on the air as one of the (too frequent) RTTY contests. I'm not opposed to RTTY, exactly the opposite. But it's the RTTY centric regs that hamper our development. Even things like P3 winmor are having to go the long way around to maximize performance while not running afoul of the arcane RTTY based regs. (Much less use of tech like the FS-1052 modems, etc) Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions
bg...@comcast.net wrote: I'm thinking another reason for the restrictions - SS is also a very good means of encryption. The previous rules on SS required use of a particular type of SS and the key number was specified in the rule.. Probably in a pre 1999 ARRL rule book , if anyone really needed to look. There might exist a method of finding old versions of the CFR online, but I have not looked. This is absolutely not the case. I know from first hand experience that all you have to do is be prepared to present any coding sequence upon demand. And that coding (viterbi, pseudo-random, whatever) does not constitute encryption to the FCC's. This was resolved back in the early packet days and the WA4DSY 56k modems. This is true of many of the other modes/modems. And was also ruled upon by the FCC due to challenges by the anti-Pactor crowd. Have fun, Alan km4ba
[digitalradio] Regulations
and/or we can campaign to change them. Amen 73 Rein W6SZ
[digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Hello Alan, Thank you much for your reply. To tell the truth, I did not subscribe to this group in those beginning days ( posted only om ROSMODEM ) It is so sad, that because of the noise, anti ROS biases, agenda's intelligent exchanges are just about impossible, pro and con. ( IMHO ) Every tine I think to understand why ROS is illegal a couple of days later, I am getting confused. -Bandwidth. -The real properties of FHSS -Is WSJT FHSS? Why , why not. -Why is WSJT65C legal ( just a rhetorical question ) -Is wide band Oliv1a FHSS Why, why not. -Being in public domain. -Specs published. -FCC and others able to monitor content. -ROS transmitted signals not the same from one transmission to another for same message -ROS transmitting while idling -Oversold by am young(?) software engineer not being familiar with US rules. Just to name a few. It is of course because of my limited intelligence, that is clear 73 Rein W6SZ worse than a narrower mode is flawed. Otherwise we'd all be using RTTY. FEC increases bandwidth for the same data rate, but the trade off surfaces over sustained measurement in real (difficult) HF conditions. Skip's work did show there was not a big win for ROS, so we arrived at the right spot. But many were banning just because it was wider than their favorite mode! - Lack of consideration that multiple SS signals could occupy the same spectrum, effectively decreasing the total required bandwidth. There is a point of diminishing returns, and ROS may not fare well. But if I could stack a dozen or more data signals simultaneously in a single SSB width slot, would that be a bad thing? Or what if a AF type SS (AFSS?) mode could live on a non-interference basis, should it be banned just because it was technically SS? No testing was done that I'm aware of that would have allowed real world throughput to be measured with multiple signals on the same channel. This is one of the big wins of DSSS! - Assumption that the current FCC reg is the end all. It was accurate for state of the art when added. But no one foresaw that DSP's would allow an audio based SS implementation inside a SSB bandwidth. The FCC reg was written to address the then current DSSS modems which used spreading factors of 100x with direct IF injection, etc. And are totally inappropriate for HF usage. Put another way, most professional RF engineers would consider any audio based scheme to not be DSSS as it's just not how it's done. Pretty much all real world DSSS systems use IF level modulation to the point that it's one of the main identifying characteristics. - Very inappropriate involvement of the FCC. This is absolutely not the way to approach a new mode, the answer is nearly always check the regs. One thing we can probably all agree on is that ROS is pretty much dead for consideration in the US. The waters are too muddied at this point. I'm more concerned about impact to the next innovation. And the fact that all the noise behavior set aside, the author did implement something new that should have been evaluated on it's merits before declared illegal via trial by yahoogroup. (Before he hastened it's demise due to his own unprofessional behavior). Personally, this episode just cements my believe that the US will be trapped using legacy modes arcane restrictions for the most part until some form of bandwidth based bandplan approach is implemented like much of the civilized world. Lest we crow about some of the more recent innovations, we have to factor in that rtty still rules the airwaves from a number of users and usage perspective. And it's about as inefficient a mode we could come up with when impact to the spectrum is factored in. (medium power, wide sidebands, single user per channel, etc). Call me when there is a weekend with as many PSK signals on the air as one of the (too frequent) RTTY contests. I'm not opposed to RTTY, exactly the opposite. But it's the RTTY centric regs that hamper our development. Even things like P3 winmor are having to go the long way around to maximize performance while not running afoul of the arcane RTTY based regs. (Much less use of tech like the FS-1052 modems, etc) Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Very simple change just add ³greater than 3 khz² to the existing rules. On 7/13/10 3:28 PM, Dave Wright hfradio...@gmail.com wrote: I think that a lot of people are missing the point with ROS and Spread Spectrum here in the US. The author defined it as Spread Spectrum, only changing it to FSK144 (or whatever) after being told that SS was not allowed below 1.25m in the US. The FCC rules don't mention bandwidth in relationship to SS, they don't say that it must employ bandwidths that greatly exceed the bandwidth necessary to convey the intelligence, nor do they reference any Wikipedia/ARRL/RSGB/ITU or other organization's definition. They simply mention SS as not being allowed below 1.25m. So, you can say that it is only 2.2kHz in bandwidth, but if it is spread spectrum within that 2.2kHz of bandwidth, it is illegal in the US below 1.2m. It could be 500Hz in bandwidth, but if it uses SS, then it is illegal. Is this the way it should be? No. Does it impede innovation and development of new mod es? Yes. However, the way the rule is written is what we have to follow. Don't like it? Then petition the FCC to modify part 97 to allow SS within a limited bandwidth (say 3 kHz). As Skip has pointed out, there is a way to do this without mentioning ROS (or CHIP64/128) or any other SS mode. Quote the definition and petition for a modification, possibly with a bandwidth restriction, possibly without. But, without changing the rule, the rest of the discussion is moot. Dave K3DCW On Jul 13, 2010, at 2:23 PM, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Hi Alan, Why did you wait so long with contributing here? Please explain. ++ In Feb of this year I quoted from the ARRL's Spread Spectrum Source book page 5-2 ++ Spread Spectrum Fundamentals SS systems employ radio frequency bandwidths that greatly exceed the bandwidth necessary to convey the intelligence. Bandwidths for SS systems generally run from 10 to 100 times the information rate. etc etc. I got shouted out of the Group by addressing the use of ROS in the US by the experts on SS. Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net http://www.k3dcw.net
Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions
Spread Spectrum does not unto itself comprise a means of encrypting information although encryption often accompanies it. On 7/13/10 3:50 PM, Lester Veenstra les...@veenstras.com wrote: The rules also make it clear that SS (or any other coding system) cannot be used to hid the meaning. They used to demand disclosure of the encoding system for compliance, but now, seem happy if the decode software (but not the source code) is freely available to those who want to listen. 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 bg...@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:45 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions sorry, the fine print is giving me fits. It's obviously 97.3 (c)(9). I'm thinking another reason for the restrictions - SS is also a very good means of encryption. The previous rules on SS required use of a particular type of SS and the key number was specified in the rule.. Probably in a pre 1999 ARRL rule book , if anyone really needed to look. There might exist a method of finding old versions of the CFR online, but I have not looked. - Original Message - From: Lester Veenstra les...@veenstras.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:26:57 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions § 97.3 Definitions. (b) The definitions of technical symbols used in this part are: (9) UHF (ultra-high frequency). The frequency range 3003000 MHz. -- § 97.3 Definitions. (c) The following terms are used in this part to indicate emission types. Refer to § 2.201 of the FCC Rules, Emission, modulation and transmission characteristics, for information on emission type designators. (8) SS. Spread spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. § 2.201 Emission, modulation, and transmission characteristics. The following system of designating emission, modulation, and transmission characteristics shall be employed. (a) Emissions are designated according to their classification and their necessary bandwidth. (b) A minimum of three symbols are used to describe the basic characteristics of radio waves. Emissions are classified and symbolized according to the following characteristics: (1) First symboltype of modulation of the main character; (2) Second symbolnature of signal( s) modulating the main carrier; (3) Third symboltype of information to be transmitted. (c) First Symboltypes of modulation of the main carrier: (2) Emission in which the main carrier is amplitude-modulated (including cases where sub-carriers are angle-modulated):. Double-sideband ... A Single-sideband, full carrier . H Single-sideband, reduced or variable level carrier R Single-sideband, suppressed carrier .. J Vestigial sideband C (3) Emission in which the main carrier is angle-modulated:. Frequency modulation . F Phase modulation . G NOTE: Whenever frequency modulation F¹¹ is indicated, Phase modulation G¹¹ is also acceptable. (4) Emission in which the main carrier is amplitude and anglemodulated either simultaneously or in a pre-established sequence .. D Lester B Veenstra MØYCM K1YCM les...@veenstras.com m0...@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:
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
It is generally accepted that 10 times bandwidth is the minimum necessary to achieve enough processing gain to make the use of SS worthwhile. On 7/13/10 3:55 PM, J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com wrote: There's the generally accepted definition of SS, quoted below and referring to bandwidths greatly exceeding what's necessary, and then there's the way the FCC regs are written, which do not refer to that definition. I think just about everyone, or maybe absolutely everyone who cares about the FCC regs, thinks in this case they are inappropriate, but the fact is, they do not allow for narrow-band SS, even though it would cause no real harm. The regs should be changed, but until they are, we in the US can not use SS below 220, or we can move to another country, or we can violate the regs, and/or we can campaign to change them. But saying you don't agree with a law so you don't have to follow it is not the right way. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: rein...@ix.netcom.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:23 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum Hi Alan, Why did you wait so long with contributing here? Please explain. ++ In Feb of this year I quoted from the ARRL's Spread Spectrum Source book page 5-2 ++ Spread Spectrum Fundamentals SS systems employ radio frequency bandwidths that greatly exceed the bandwidth necessary to convey the intelligence. Bandwidths for SS systems generally run from 10 to 100 times the information rate. etc etc. I got shouted out of the Group by addressing the use of ROS in the US by the experts on SS. 73 Rein W6SZ
[digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Hi Jeff, Thanks for responding in spite of everything! The FCC then made their own analysis and concluded it was not FSK but truly spread spectrum. This was communicated to us by the ARRL as is usually the case. ( I know this may cost me my license if I have to believe some contributors here. ) I have just big problems with this statement. You will not help me getting to the bottom of this A couple of months ago I emailed and asked friendly the person, that could have answered me ( Absolutely sure on this ) to allow me to ask a few questions ( did not mention the ROS subject ) Also, I just can't buy your statement that the FCC communicates via ARRL. ( But is has no bearing on this ) I did not notice or missed an answer for whatever reason. I got the name an email address from lets say a person that knows Washington and he wrote me that since President Obama is in office e-mail is used a lot... I really do not want to go into details. If you like to know I can supply you the details off this board. I am not addressing the no-reply result. The person in question could receive 100's of messages a day. And I was too polite and did not state a subject. I click some 250 messages away every day here and sometimes make mistakes in clicking an important one. Not stating the real subject might have caused this, could be. Mot blaming anybody just myself, for wasting an potential opportunity. The time of this person is valuable. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Rein, I said I would not comment further on ROS, but look at it in perspective. The author defined ROS as spread spectrum and produced a two page document to that effect. He is the only one who knows for sure if it is spread spectrum or not. When it was posted that spread spectrum was not legal below 222 Mhz, he conveniently (for his benefit) tried to redefine ROS as FSK, in an apparent attempt to change the FCC opinion, which originally was based on his own two-page declaration, which he wanted us to believe. The FCC then made their own analysis and concluded it was not FSK but truly spread spectrum. This was communicated to us by the ARRL as is usually the case. The author, if he would have disclosed his code, could have proven whether or not the randomization is for spread spectrum purposes or for some other reason, but he steadfastly refused to disclose the code, which would either have resulted in it being OK for us to use, or prove it was truly FHSS. Perhaps he decided to try and bluff the FCC because it would be determined, on the basis of his code, to really be FHSS, in agreement with his first description, and in disagreement with the second description he wrote, obviously just to try to get approval. It is just not reasonable to think that a person of his ability, as the author of the software, could make such a huge mistake in his first characterization of ROS as spread spectrum and then completely revise the characterization as something else which he knew would be usable by US hams. You can imagine how the FCC feels about that attempted deception, and to top it off, he posts a phoney statement of FCC approval besides! I seriously doubt that the FCC is going to want to revisit the question, since the author simply cannot be believed. I met Dan Henderson at a hamfest right after all this happened and he had been in contact the FCC, and opined that it was highly doubtful that any further reconsideration would be done. The ONLY way for us to ever use ROS on HF is to petition the FCC to amend the rules to allow limited spread spectrum below 222 Mhz, citing enough good reasons why it will not harm existing operations of lesser bandwidth. Instead of constantly arguing that the FCC made a mistake, or we should interpret the rules as we wish they were, I suggest that either a petition be filed, or the code released to prove the author's contention that it is not spread spectrum. Of course the submitted code would have to be recompiled and tested to prove it is really the original code, and another attempted deception by the author. Understand that I am NOT against ROS, and never have been, even though I strongly dislike the author's behavior and suspect his motives. I would keep using it on HF if it were legal for me to do so. I do respect the FCC regulations, even those that I do not like, and follow them as best I can, because in the overall picture, they protect the weak from the strong for the benefit of everyone, until revised in a non-harmful way. This will be my (final) final word on this subject, so please do not ask me to comment any further. If you want to use ROS on HF, then enter a petition to get the regulations changed so you can, or work with someone else who will do that for you, and end this endless denigrating of the FCC, ARRL, and others who follow the
[digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Barrow ml9...@... wrote: - Simplistic bandwidth comparisons that do not factor in total throughput. (IE: The effect of processor gain, FEC, etc). I don't think ROS was stellar here, but the idea that a wider mode for X data rate is worse than a narrower mode is flawed. Otherwise we'd all be using RTTY. FEC increases bandwidth for the same data rate, but the trade off surfaces over sustained measurement in real (difficult) HF conditions. Skip's work did show there was not a big win for ROS, so we arrived at the right spot. But many were banning just because it was wider than their favorite mode! I don't know if that is a dig at one of the arguments I have made in the past, but I do believe that 2.25kHz ROS was too wide for our existing HF bands. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of a mode, people can't go on inventing new modes unless they can also come up with a place for them to be used that doesn't squeeze out existing users. Even three channels was patently inadequate for the number of users wishing to use ROS with the result that most of the contacts made, as evidenced by the spots posted here, were anything but weak signal DX as the chances of finding 2.25kHz of 20m unoccupied are pretty slim at any time. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
So 10 times is not a property of SS. Yes 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: W2XJ w...@w2xj.net Sent: Jul 13, 2010 8:46 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum It is generally accepted that 10 times bandwidth is the minimum necessary to achieve enough processing gain to make the use of SS worthwhile. On 7/13/10 3:55 PM, J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com wrote: There's the generally accepted definition of SS, quoted below and referring to bandwidths greatly exceeding what's necessary, and then there's the way the FCC regs are written, which do not refer to that definition. I think just about everyone, or maybe absolutely everyone who cares about the FCC regs, thinks in this case they are inappropriate, but the fact is, they do not allow for narrow-band SS, even though it would cause no real harm. The regs should be changed, but until they are, we in the US can not use SS below 220, or we can move to another country, or we can violate the regs, and/or we can campaign to change them. But saying you don't agree with a law so you don't have to follow it is not the right way. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: rein...@ix.netcom.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:23 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum Hi Alan, Why did you wait so long with contributing here? Please explain. ++ In Feb of this year I quoted from the ARRL's Spread Spectrum Source book page 5-2 ++ Spread Spectrum Fundamentals SS systems employ radio frequency bandwidths that greatly exceed the bandwidth necessary to convey the intelligence. Bandwidths for SS systems generally run from 10 to 100 times the information rate. etc etc. I got shouted out of the Group by addressing the use of ROS in the US by the experts on SS. 73 Rein W6SZ
Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions
OK does ROS encrypt or not? I though if something was encrypted one would need some means provided to a limited group, to allow and enable them to decode the message. Do we have that in ROS? We need the complete package receiving part included. Does the transmitting station provide us with such a key every time? Does Jose ROS perhaps e-mails it to us?? And when the day comes he will not do that any longer? At the beginning of a QSO? At the beginning of a transmission? Ever? Never? I know it would be so much easier if Jose told us these points! And many have said this before Just asking questions that are relevant heaving seen comments here on this board over the last couple of months, concerning SS 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: W2XJ w...@w2xj.net Sent: Jul 13, 2010 4:42 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions Spread Spectrum does not unto itself comprise a means of encrypting information although encryption often accompanies it. On 7/13/10 3:50 PM, Lester Veenstra les...@veenstras.com wrote: The rules also make it clear that SS (or any other coding system) cannot be used to hid the meaning. They used to demand disclosure of the encoding system for compliance, but now, seem happy if the decode software (but not the source code) is freely available to those who want to listen. 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 bg...@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:45 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions sorry, the fine print is giving me fits. It's obviously 97.3 (c)(9). I'm thinking another reason for the restrictions - SS is also a very good means of encryption. The previous rules on SS required use of a particular type of SS and the key number was specified in the rule.. Probably in a pre 1999 ARRL rule book , if anyone really needed to look. There might exist a method of finding old versions of the CFR online, but I have not looked. - Original Message - From: Lester Veenstra les...@veenstras.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:26:57 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions § 97.3 Definitions. (b) The definitions of technical symbols used in this part are: (9) UHF (ultra-high frequency). The frequency range 3003000 MHz. -- § 97.3 Definitions. (c) The following terms are used in this part to indicate emission types. Refer to § 2.201 of the FCC Rules, Emission, modulation and transmission characteristics, for information on emission type designators. (8) SS. Spread spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. § 2.201 Emission, modulation, and transmission characteristics. The following system of designating emission, modulation, and transmission characteristics shall be employed. (a) Emissions are designated according to their classification and their necessary bandwidth. (b) A minimum of three symbols are used to describe the basic characteristics of radio waves. Emissions are classified and symbolized according to the following characteristics: (1) First symboltype of modulation of the main character; (2) Second symbolnature of signal( s) modulating the main carrier; (3) Third symboltype of information to be transmitted. (c) First Symboltypes of modulation of the main carrier: (2) Emission in which the main carrier is amplitude-modulated (including cases where sub-carriers are angle-modulated):. Double-sideband ... A Single-sideband, full carrier . H Single-sideband, reduced or variable level carrier R Single-sideband,
[digitalradio] using ROS in the USA
I have learned much by following the ROS/USA Cluster F. I see there is a plausible out for those of us wishing to use the software. It appears that all the sub-modes in the ROS software are not SS. I am not that good an engineer to decide for myself so here am asking all, which of the sub modes are OK ? david/wd4kpd -- God's law is set in stone : everything else is negotiable
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
This question of bandwidth for various modes and where to squeeze in the wider modes is a good topic. Reminds me of the folks who really like enhanced fidelity SSB (3.5 out to nearly 5 kHz), or AM. There are many bands at certain times of day that have lots of space for those modes, but I'd hope those hams would be kind to the rest of us, for example during a contest or when certain bands are chock-full. I think if 3 kHz SSB is ok, that 2.25 kHz modes (ROS as an example) should be ok, as long as the frequencies chosen are prudent for the band and time of time. That discussion is entirely separate from the US legal questions about SS modes on HF. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: g4ilo To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Barrow ml9...@... wrote: - Simplistic bandwidth comparisons that do not factor in total throughput. (IE: The effect of processor gain, FEC, etc). I don't think ROS was stellar here, but the idea that a wider mode for X data rate is worse than a narrower mode is flawed. Otherwise we'd all be using RTTY. FEC increases bandwidth for the same data rate, but the trade off surfaces over sustained measurement in real (difficult) HF conditions. Skip's work did show there was not a big win for ROS, so we arrived at the right spot. But many were banning just because it was wider than their favorite mode! I don't know if that is a dig at one of the arguments I have made in the past, but I do believe that 2.25kHz ROS was too wide for our existing HF bands. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of a mode, people can't go on inventing new modes unless they can also come up with a place for them to be used that doesn't squeeze out existing users. Even three channels was patently inadequate for the number of users wishing to use ROS with the result that most of the contacts made, as evidenced by the spots posted here, were anything but weak signal DX as the chances of finding 2.25kHz of 20m unoccupied are pretty slim at any time. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Very well stated, separate questions. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com Sent: Jul 13, 2010 6:37 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum This question of bandwidth for various modes and where to squeeze in the wider modes is a good topic. Reminds me of the folks who really like enhanced fidelity SSB (3.5 out to nearly 5 kHz), or AM. There are many bands at certain times of day that have lots of space for those modes, but I'd hope those hams would be kind to the rest of us, for example during a contest or when certain bands are chock-full. I think if 3 kHz SSB is ok, that 2.25 kHz modes (ROS as an example) should be ok, as long as the frequencies chosen are prudent for the band and time of time. That discussion is entirely separate from the US legal questions about SS modes on HF. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: g4ilo To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:35 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Barrow ml9...@... wrote: - Simplistic bandwidth comparisons that do not factor in total throughput. (IE: The effect of processor gain, FEC, etc). I don't think ROS was stellar here, but the idea that a wider mode for X data rate is worse than a narrower mode is flawed. Otherwise we'd all be using RTTY. FEC increases bandwidth for the same data rate, but the trade off surfaces over sustained measurement in real (difficult) HF conditions. Skip's work did show there was not a big win for ROS, so we arrived at the right spot. But many were banning just because it was wider than their favorite mode! I don't know if that is a dig at one of the arguments I have made in the past, but I do believe that 2.25kHz ROS was too wide for our existing HF bands. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of a mode, people can't go on inventing new modes unless they can also come up with a place for them to be used that doesn't squeeze out existing users. Even three channels was patently inadequate for the number of users wishing to use ROS with the result that most of the contacts made, as evidenced by the spots posted here, were anything but weak signal DX as the chances of finding 2.25kHz of 20m unoccupied are pretty slim at any time. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions [1 Attachment]
Delighted I am to find the 1998 version of 47CFR97.311 on the GPO website, attached. We are both maybe correct. The FCC prescribed the method, the operator filled in the variables, which he kept in a log and logged it every time s/he changed a variable. - Original Message - From: Alan Barrow ml9...@pinztrek.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:03:01 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions bg...@comcast.net wrote: I'm thinking another reason for the restrictions - SS is also a very good means of encryption. The previous rules on SS required use of a particular type of SS and the key number was specified in the rule.. Probably in a pre 1999 ARRL rule book , if anyone really needed to look. There might exist a method of finding old versions of the CFR online, but I have not looked. This is absolutely not the case. I know from first hand experience that all you have to do is be prepared to present any coding sequence upon demand. And that coding (viterbi, pseudo-random, whatever) does not constitute encryption to the FCC's. This was resolved back in the early packet days and the WA4DSY 56k modems. This is true of many of the other modes/modems. And was also ruled upon by the FCC due to challenges by the anti-Pactor crowd. Have fun, Alan km4ba http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions
bg...@comcast.net wrote: [Attachment(s) #TopText from bg...@comcast.net included below] Delighted I am to find the 1998 version of 47CFR97.311 on the GPO website, attached. We are both maybe correct. The FCC prescribed the method, the operator filled in the variables, which he kept in a log and logged it every time s/he changed a variable. Yep, I agree! Your information is newer, but very much follows the intent of the FCC expressed for the interactions I was aware of. I found their approach quite reasonable. There are those who assume any mode they cannot copy with free software is encrypted and illegal, and that is for sure not the case as well. There was a separate ruling on that one if I recall. Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
g4ilo wrote: I don't know if that is a dig at one of the arguments I have made in the past, Certainly not directed at you as an individual. I just feel that things like sustained throughput which includes the effect of FEC processor gain in the case of SS need to be included. So it's not as simple as 2.2khz bandwidth divided by 128 bps as a figure of merit. Skip's testing did show that for it's 2.2khz bandwidth, ROS was not the leader in throughput. What will never be known is if multiple ROS signals could have shared that bandwidth without interference, or if it could have lived in large signal (SSB, FM, etc) areas without interference. but I do believe that 2.25kHz ROS was too wide for our existing HF bands. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of a mode, people can't go on inventing new modes unless they can also come up with a place for them to be used that doesn't squeeze out existing users. Here we disagree somewhat. I would mostly agree for areas like 40m, especially if multiple channels were used like ROS did. But I don't agree that a new otherwise legal mode that is SSB width should be excluded just because the bands can be crowded. If we followed your recommendations, SSB, SSTV, PSK, all the digital modes, etc would never have been allowed to be used. This is not to be construed that the approach the ROS implementor took was a model of how things should proceed! the chances of finding 2.25kHz of 20m unoccupied are pretty slim at any time. If the mode is otherwise legal, it's up to the operator to find a hole to operate. That's not a matter for legislation. :-) Personally, I think we missed a chance to see what could be done with an AFSK based SS approach in the wider less used bands. Test in the strong signal areas, where interference to legacy modes would be minimal. Maybe DSSS between the FM frequencies on 10m where there would not be interference to each other. Use a wider spreading sequence to increase processor gain (and improve noise performance). Add in a CDMA approach to allow multiple users in the same slots. There are many possibilities which could be explored. If your point is that 3 SSB width slots in the crowded 40m data section was not appropriate, I agree! Other bands? Not so sure. :-) Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
W2XJ wrote: It is generally accepted that 10 times bandwidth is the minimum necessary to achieve enough processing gain to make the use of SS worthwhile. Not only is it not worth doing, it also increased chances of interference. I'm not aware of any weak signal DSSS using spreading factors of less than 100. The lowest I've seen is 16 for consumer strong signal wide band stuff. And that's just due to economics, not for performance. Take that same psk'ish data rate, use a more conventional spreading factor of 128, and you could see decent weak signal performance due to processor gain, and most likely not impact strong signal legacy modes in the same band segment. Of course, you could not do this with an audio SSB approach. But you could certainly decode it with SDR, which is why we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Remember, ROS somewhat sucked because it's spreading was so small there was a large likelihood of any given bit interfering with another weak signal. Spread that out, and it's only the individual chips (fraction of a data bit) that is on any given frequency at any given time. Put another way, you could probably run multiple DSSS signals at psk data rates in the SSB (voice) sub-bands with minimal impact to existing qso's if spread like conventional DSSS. You could see the impact on a properly setup monitor, but realistically the SSB stations would not detect the chips in their slot. Not that I'm proposing we do so, just that we need to fully understand the technology, it's potential advantages impacts before we throw it out. All that said, I'm not expecting to see any SS on HF by hams in the next decade or two. I view it as a lost cause and we'll just learn to deal with the beeps bloops from advance digital modes from non-amateur services on our shared bands. Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] Digital modes other than ROS
-Original Message- From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail.com Sent: Jul 13, 2010 7:10 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digital modes other than ROS What about them? They all work. Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: Rein A What about all these modes? http://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/radio-sounds.html ( Answer : It never was asked? It is called Selfregulation by the radio amateur community 73 Rein W6SZ
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
The definition of Spread Spectrum in 97.3(c)8 rests on the phrase using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions. This clearly lacks the technical precision required - for digital mode developers to know what techniques can and can not be incorporated in modes used by US stations (e.g. pseudo-random coding, as Alan points out below) - for US digital mode users to determine if and on what frequencies an accurately-documented mode can be used A constructive response to the Ros debacle would be to propose improved language for 97.3(c)8 that is clear and unambiguous. Assuming the proposed definition does not increase the likelihood of causing harmful interference or permit encrypted communications (concerns implicit in 97.311), the FCC would likely welcome a change that improves our ability to abide by the regulations without consuming their scarce resources. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Alan Barrow Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:22 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum graham787 wrote: 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. While I do not support ROS in any form, I think the group is on a very slippery slope here with well intentioned but misinformed definitions tests that may haunt us in the future! Just the fact that data is randomized does not define SS. There has to be a spreading factor, which has some rough definitions based on practical applications, but is not addressed in any FCC definitions. Skip's well intentioned but overly simplistic test of looking at the bit stream is not enough to define SS. There are many legitimate reasons to code data resulting in a pseudo-random fashion that have nothing to do with SS! The most common is coding so the transitions between bit's can easily be detected even in noise. It's a problem when sequential bits look the same. You can also factor in FEC. There are many, many writeups on convolutional encoding that go into this. (Viterbi reed-solomon are in wide usage) But it's also useful to spread the energy out in the bandwidth and avoid sidebands created by single tones of long duration. There are multiple modem/modes which do this, some in very wide usage. So yes, SS (really DSSS) is pseudo-random. But not all pseudo-random coding is SS, and we should not be proposing that as a litmus test! The real test should be: - direct or BPSK modulation via a pseudo-random code in addition to any coding for FEC (convolutional, etc) - A spreading factor significantly higher than the original data rate The 2nd item is the key part, and it's listed but virtually never quoted in this group, but is listed in nearly all the SS definitions. Nor is it addressed in the FCC part 97 rules. It's not enough that the bandwidth is higher than the data rate would imply, as nearly all modes with FEC would fail that by definition. The key is the significantly wider aspect, also referred to in ITU/IEEE definitions as typically orders of magnitude greater than the data rate. And this is why many engineers question whether any SSB generated mode could be real SS. ROS only did it by having the original data rate lower than the SSB bandwidth. About the lowest commercial DSSS implementations use a spreading factor of 16:1, and that's for consumer grade without noise performance concerns. Most DSSS implementations in the real world use spreading factors of 100 or greater, as that's when you start seeing significant noise recovery improvements. In DSSS, the processor gain which improves noise resilience is directly related to the spreading factor. I've posted multiple definitions from the ITU IEEE in the past for DSSS. Wikipedia, which has some good information, does not constitute a formal definition like the ITU IEEE references do. (Part of the reason that wikipedia is not admissible as sources for college research papers). There is no shortage of formal definitions, we should not have to invent our own. There are also some very readable definitions from mfg's for their DSSS components. Like this one: http://www.maxim-ic.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/1890 So ROS (RIP) is very odd in this aspect, as it's nowhere near conventional DSSS implementations in it's spreading factor, yet is higher than the spreading seen by
[digitalradio] Re: [digital radio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
The creator of ROS does not present himself as a very nice or honest person but I also believe there are cultural and language issues that add to the problem. Before all this started several months ago, I did not believe the initial presentation that it was really spread spectrum but rather something written by someone with a bad grasp of the English language. That being said, Skip, you are also misrepresenting the situation by stating the FCC made an analysis. Read the documentation and it is clear they made a fairly non committal statement based on the published material. The FCC does not like being involved in such matters. This is like the Dstar controversy a few years back when an FCC official publicly told hams at Dayton that if they were qualified to hold a license they should be able to sort it out themselves. The commission will not do the thinking that hams themselves should be doing for them selves. Please keep the sandbox fights away from the FCC it will ultimately destroy the hobby. With the hunt for more spectrum to sell be careful or there may not be any frequencies above 222 MHZ to even worry about spread spectrum. On 7/13/10 3:23 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: Rein, I said I would not comment further on ROS, but look at it in perspective. The author defined ROS as spread spectrum and produced a two page document to that effect. He is the only one who knows for sure if it is spread spectrum or not. When it was posted that spread spectrum was not legal below 222 Mhz, he conveniently (for his benefit) tried to redefine ROS as FSK, in an apparent attempt to change the FCC opinion, which originally was based on his own two-page declaration, which he wanted us to believe. The FCC then made their own analysis and concluded it was not FSK but truly spread spectrum. This was communicated to us by the ARRL as is usually the case. The author, if he would have disclosed his code, could have proven whether or not the randomization is for spread spectrum purposes or for some other reason, but he steadfastly refused to disclose the code, which would either have resulted in it being OK for us to use, or prove it was truly FHSS. Perhaps he decided to try and bluff the FCC because it would be determined, on the basis of his code, to really be FHSS, in agreement with his first description, and in disagreement with the second description he wrote, obviously just to try to get approval. It is just not reasonable to think that a person of his ability, as the author of the software, could make such a huge mistake in his first characterization of ROS as spread spectrum and then completely revise the characterization as something else which he knew would be usable by US hams. You can imagine how the FCC feels about that attempted deception, and to top it off, he posts a phoney statement of FCC approval besides! I seriously doubt that the FCC is going to want to revisit the question, since the author simply cannot be believed. I met Dan Henderson at a hamfest right after all this happened and he had been in contact the FCC, and opined that it was highly doubtful that any further reconsideration would be done. The ONLY way for us to ever use ROS on HF is to petition the FCC to amend the rules to allow limited spread spectrum below 222 Mhz, citing enough good reasons why it will not harm existing operations of lesser bandwidth. Instead of constantly arguing that the FCC made a mistake, or we should interpret the rules as we wish they were, I suggest that either a petition be filed, or the code released to prove the author's contention that it is not spread spectrum. Of course the submitted code would have to be recompiled and tested to prove it is really the original code, and another attempted deception by the author. Understand that I am NOT against ROS, and never have been, even though I strongly dislike the author's behavior and suspect his motives. I would keep using it on HF if it were legal for me to do so. I do respect the FCC regulations, even those that I do not like, and follow them as best I can, because in the overall picture, they protect the weak from the strong for the benefit of everyone, until revised in a non-harmful way. This will be my (final) final word on this subject, so please do not ask me to comment any further. If you want to use ROS on HF, then enter a petition to get the regulations changed so you can, or work with someone else who will do that for you, and end this endless denigrating of the FCC, ARRL, and others who follow the regulations and depend upon ARRL interpretations of the FCC regulations for us all. Signing off on ROS now - 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/13/2010 2:23 PM, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Hi Alan, Why did you wait so long with contributing here? Please explain. ++ In Feb of this year I quoted from the ARRL's Spread Spectrum Source book
Re: [digitalradio] Digital modes other than ROS
ROS does not work? Is that your point? And they are legal, Ros is Not 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail.com Sent: Jul 13, 2010 7:10 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digital modes other than ROS What about them? They all work. Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: Rein A What about all these modes? http://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/radio-sounds.html ( Answer : It never was asked? It is called Selfregulation by the radio amateur community 73 Rein W6SZ
RE: [digitalradio] Re: [digital radio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
When a regulation is based on a vague phrase like using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions, the FCC should *expect* to hear from amateurs trying to determine whether or not a mode is legal. There are certainly many situations where amateurs can indeed be expected to sort it out themselves; this isn't one of them. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:35 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: [digital radio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum The creator of ROS does not present himself as a very nice or honest person but I also believe there are cultural and language issues that add to the problem. Before all this started several months ago, I did not believe the initial presentation that it was really spread spectrum but rather something written by someone with a bad grasp of the English language. That being said, Skip, you are also misrepresenting the situation by stating the FCC made an analysis. Read the documentation and it is clear they made a fairly non committal statement based on the published material. The FCC does not like being involved in such matters. This is like the Dstar controversy a few years back when an FCC official publicly told hams at Dayton that if they were qualified to hold a license they should be able to sort it out themselves. The commission will not do the thinking that hams themselves should be doing for them selves. Please keep the sandbox fights away from the FCC it will ultimately destroy the hobby. With the hunt for more spectrum to sell be careful or there may not be any frequencies above 222 MHZ to even worry about spread spectrum. On 7/13/10 3:23 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: Rein, I said I would not comment further on ROS, but look at it in perspective. The author defined ROS as spread spectrum and produced a two page document to that effect. He is the only one who knows for sure if it is spread spectrum or not. When it was posted that spread spectrum was not legal below 222 Mhz, he conveniently (for his benefit) tried to redefine ROS as FSK, in an apparent attempt to change the FCC opinion, which originally was based on his own two-page declaration, which he wanted us to believe. The FCC then made their own analysis and concluded it was not FSK but truly spread spectrum. This was communicated to us by the ARRL as is usually the case. The author, if he would have disclosed his code, could have proven whether or not the randomization is for spread spectrum purposes or for some other reason, but he steadfastly refused to disclose the code, which would either have resulted in it being OK for us to use, or prove it was truly FHSS. Perhaps he decided to try and bluff the FCC because it would be determined, on the basis of his code, to really be FHSS, in agreement with his first description, and in disagreement with the second description he wrote, obviously just to try to get approval. It is just not reasonable to think that a person of his ability, as the author of the software, could make such a huge mistake in his first characterization of ROS as spread spectrum and then completely revise the characterization as something else which he knew would be usable by US hams. You can imagine how the FCC feels about that attempted deception, and to top it off, he posts a phoney statement of FCC approval besides! I seriously doubt that the FCC is going to want to revisit the question, since the author simply cannot be believed. I met Dan Henderson at a hamfest right after all this happened and he had been in contact the FCC, and opined that it was highly doubtful that any further reconsideration would be done. The ONLY way for us to ever use ROS on HF is to petition the FCC to amend the rules to allow limited spread spectrum below 222 Mhz, citing enough good reasons why it will not harm existing operations of lesser bandwidth. Instead of constantly arguing that the FCC made a mistake, or we should interpret the rules as we wish they were, I suggest that either a petition be filed, or the code released to prove the author's contention that it is not spread spectrum. Of course the submitted code would have to be recompiled and tested to prove it is really the original code, and another attempted deception by the author. Understand that I am NOT against ROS, and never have been, even though I strongly dislike the author's behavior and suspect his motives. I would keep using it on HF if it were legal for me to do so. I do respect the FCC regulations, even those that I do not like, and follow them as best I can, because in the overall picture, they protect the weak from the strong for the benefit of everyone, until revised in a non-harmful way. This will be my (final) final word on this subject, so please do not ask me to comment any further. If you want
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Alan, What happens, for example, if 100 DSSS stations are all on at the same time, on the same beginning and ending frequencies, because everyone assumes his presence at any one frequency is too short to be noticed? Will they interfere with each other, or will they collectively interfere with other users of the frequency, such as SSB stations? When you say multiple how many would that be with a spreading factor of 100? It seems to me that enough chips randomly spread over the band (by enough multiple stations) could also raise the general noise level, even if they were very weak. This was a concern of weak signal operators. For example, suppose it was decided to let multiple DSSS stations span the whole length of the 20m phone band so there was sufficient spreading. How many on the air at one time would it take to create noticeable QRM to SSB phone stations, or raise the noise background if they were on VHF? I ask this because I believe that the question arose several years ago regarding allowing hi-speed multimedia to operate over 20 kHz on 20m, which may be OK for one station, but what happens if there are 100 stations doing the same thing? If there are enough randomly dispersed chips, won't they eventually fill the entire area with if there are enough of them? I studied communications theory and auto-correlation functions, etc., 50 years ago in college, but unfortunately I don't remember much of it at all! 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/13/2010 8:15 PM, Alan Barrow wrote: W2XJ wrote: It is generally accepted that 10 times bandwidth is the minimum necessary to achieve enough processing gain to make the use of SS worthwhile. Not only is it not worth doing, it also increased chances of interference. I'm not aware of any weak signal DSSS using spreading factors of less than 100. The lowest I've seen is 16 for consumer strong signal wide band stuff. And that's just due to economics, not for performance. Take that same psk'ish data rate, use a more conventional spreading factor of 128, and you could see decent weak signal performance due to processor gain, and most likely not impact strong signal legacy modes in the same band segment. Of course, you could not do this with an audio SSB approach. But you could certainly decode it with SDR, which is why we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Remember, ROS somewhat sucked because it's spreading was so small there was a large likelihood of any given bit interfering with another weak signal. Spread that out, and it's only the individual chips (fraction of a data bit) that is on any given frequency at any given time. Put another way, you could probably run multiple DSSS signals at psk data rates in the SSB (voice) sub-bands with minimal impact to existing qso's if spread like conventional DSSS. You could see the impact on a properly setup monitor, but realistically the SSB stations would not detect the chips in their slot. Not that I'm proposing we do so, just that we need to fully understand the technology, it's potential advantages impacts before we throw it out. All that said, I'm not expecting to see any SS on HF by hams in the next decade or two. I view it as a lost cause and we'll just learn to deal with the beeps bloops from advance digital modes from non-amateur services on our shared bands. Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] Re: [digital radio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
On 7/13/2010 4:34 PM, W2XJ wrote: That being said, Skip, you are also misrepresenting the situation by stating the FCC made an analysis. Read the documentation and it is clear they made a fairly non committal statement based on the published material. The FCC does not like being involved in such matters. By what authority do you claim to know that the FCC did not make any analysis? That is in direct conflict with what I was told by a member of the group that did the analysis. Skip KH6TY ,___
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
KH6TY wrote: Alan, What happens, for example, if 100 DSSS stations are all on at the same time, on the same beginning and ending frequencies, because everyone assumes his presence at any one frequency is too short to be noticed? Will they interfere with each other, or will they collectively interfere with other users of the frequency, such as SSB stations? All valid questions. You know the answer to most of them. DSSS without CDMA, hold off, etc would neither work or be desired beyond a certain loading (number of users). When you say multiple how many would that be with a spreading factor of 100? Like you, I'd have to dig out the math, make some assumptions. There is an answer, and it's greater than 1, and less than 100 for sure. :-) Based on very rough math, and fuzzy assumptions, my initial calcs were that it would take over 10 simultaneous DSSS to be detectable at psk data rates with a spreading factor of 100. More than that to be interference to a typical SSB signal. Remember, just because a chip wanders into an SSB bandwidth slot does not mean it will interfere with an SSB signal due to SSB filtering, response curves, etc. That bit in the bottom 50 hz of an SSB slot will not be detected. Likewise those in the guard bands between typical SSB signal spacing. Likewise, since the energy is widely distributed there are no significant sidebands that are much easier to detect/hear and become interference. But that was just a concept thrown out to make people realize that all DSSS is not like ROS. Nor like the high data rate strong signal DSSS seen on higher bands. We need to separate the concept from the flawed implementation, that's my point. I do believe in the future we will want to revisit DSSS with CDMA as an alternative to the chaos of RTTY/WINMOR/P3/ALE/SSTV/whatever we have now. Not to the exclusion of legacy weak signal modes. But as a more efficient way to maximize throughput (users * data of any type) of the very limited HF resource we have. We'd have to do the math, but I'm pretty confident that for any chunk of bandwidth (say, 20khz or greater) you could support more simultaneous users at a given data rate with DSSS or similar wideband mode with CDMA than the same chunk with SSB afsk modems. It's simply more efficient, does not have the guard band issues, etc. It will never happen in our lifetimes due to the hold that legacy modes have. With some justification. But that does not mean we should paint ourselves into a corner where it could never be discussed, much less proposed. It seems to me that enough chips randomly spread over the band (by enough multiple stations) could also raise the general noise level, even if they were very weak. This was a concern of weak signal operators. This is true and valid for weak signal areas. It's not for strong signal modes. Even including SSB, and you could do much in between FM channels with minimal impact to FM qso's. There's nothing that states DSSS has to be evenly spread across it's range, though it helps with processor gain. You could have a sequence that only hit the guard bands between 10m FM channels for example. For example, suppose it was decided to let multiple DSSS stations span the whole length of the 20m phone band so there was sufficient spreading. How many on the air at one time would it take to create noticeable QRM to SSB phone stations, or raise the noise background if they were on VHF? There would have to be CDMA of some form. But the answer is still more than one, less than many. You are still only using the net bandwidth even when spread. IE: You are not truly using 50khz just because the signal is spread across that range. Because you are not using it exclusively. It's only when many, many users were active simultaneously that it would reach interference levels. Likewise, the SSB signals would surface as bit errors to the DSSS, so throughput would go down when it was crowded with SSB signals. I ask this because I believe that the question arose several years ago regarding allowing hi-speed multimedia to operate over 20 kHz on 20m, which may be OK for one station, but what happens if there are 100 stations doing the same thing? High speed wide band is different than widely spread DSSS. It would absolutely interfere with anything in that bandwidth, sounding like white noise. But similar questions pop up. Given 20 khz would typically handle 5-6 SSB signals with guardbands, could you beat the throughput with that one 20khz signal? Add CDMA, and would that channel carry more traffic than the 5-6 SSB signals with P3? (Currently the ham legal throughput leader) There are tradeoffs with multi-path, fading, etc. long/short symbol lengths. None are perfect. But our current approach is not either. :-) I'm not in favor of plopping hi-fi audio or multimedia wide band signals in 20m SSB space. But do I think there should be options to experiment (tightly controlled) with a CDMA approach on our
[digitalradio] New question
Noticed this statement in a report of an exchange with a custom agent at FCC: ROS is not Spread Spectrum because the 3khz HF standard channel is maintained. Other modes like MT63, Olivia o[r] Contestia use similar techniques. I do not know who wrote it. What is the problem with it? 73 Rein W6SZ
