RE: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions
And the mis-information continues: I did not state that Spread Spectrum does comprise a means of encrypting. 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 W2XJ Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:43 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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Alan, Thanks for taking the time for a comprehensive reply! Remembering what happens during a contest with overcrowding made me wonder. The problem is that, with stations operating all independently, it is difficult to determine when throughput drops to the point it is not worth the effort. If you have dedicated channels to work with, that is quite different from the random frequencies hams choose when chasing DX or contesting at which time usage is a maximum. I was not surprised when ROS could not handle more than one QSO on the channel and the author tried to extend that to only two, because the spreading was just too small. Without scanning receivers like SDR's, he is constrained to the typical IF bandpass of transceivers already in the field, so it is just not possible to achieve the benefits of FHSS under those conditions. We run a digital FM net (using DominoEX) where most stations are both under limiting and under 20 dB quieting, and even with FM, it is important not to have the general noise level increased, just like it is for weak signal SSB or CW communications. I think it all goes back to not having control of the channel and the number of stations trying to use it simultaneously, which is much different than wired communications or commercial channels where sharing and access can be controlled. Yes, I also think that it is best we leave DSSS for now and concentrate on modes that do the job well until something really better surfaces. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity! 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/13/2010 10:48 PM, Alan Barrow wrote: 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
[digitalradio] Why even use SS, a waste of resources?
Now lets cut to the chase: THE USE OF SPREADSPECTRUM, THAT IS, THE USE OF BANDWIDTH EXPANSION TECHNIQUES BY ADDING PSEUDORANDOM DATA, NOT CREATED FROM THE USER INPUT INFORMATION DATA, IS OF NO ADVANTAGE IN IMPROVING THE END TO END PERFORMANCE OF A LINK, WHEN COMPARED WITH PROPERLY SELECTED MODERN ENCODING AND MODULATION TECHNIQUES. What I am proposing for consideration is the point that for a given transmission bandwidth, and a given end to end data transmission rate (user information), the bits added should actually perform an error reduction function and interference mitigation function. This can be performed using with tradition FEC codes and in modulation selection and encoding (PSK, MFSK,Multicarrier PSK, M-ARY FSK, multicarrier M-ARY FSK, etc.). My point is, why add bits to the transmission that at the receive end, do not improve the performance. For your consideration of the above, I repeat some previously stated basics: (1)Any proper transmission encoding coding scheme, will, as one of its first steps, scramble or randomize the incoming data, in order to provide a uniformly random data stream to the subsequent steps in the process. These randomizers come in a few well defined, published, forms, so it is not that hard to derandomize the result , once you have demodulated, and stripped off the FEC layers. This is typically the first and last step in an end to end process. This process does not produce any encoding or bandwidth expansion. It is a bit in, a bit out process. (2)FEC coding layers, to combat, frequently with one type of FEC, for low signal to noise ratio (QRN)(white noise), inherent in weak signal work to correct random errors, and then outside (around) of the previous FEC, additional layers of FEC, usually a type appropriate to combat bursty errors of the type caused by the time carrying interference environment typical of QRM and atmospheric QRN. (3)Time diversity coding, to combat the channels dispersive distortion in time over HF (short baud bad, long baud good), and frequency selective, but short duration, fading. Incidentally the short baud bad is one reason why spreading tends to underperform on real HF circuits compared to a flat white noise channel in a laboratory environment. (4)Finally, mapping the encoded transmit data into unique modulation states. This is most commonly done as frequency and phase conditions. For example, frequency diversity, in the form of encoding the source to allow it to be transmitted as adjacent multiple carriers or are single carriers on multiple frequencies, is needed to combat the frequency selective fading present on HF paths and to make use of frequencies that at any given instant (in this case, instant = the symbol time) have less noise (QRM) present. There is a practical limit to what can be done in a single carrier system with encoding on HF circuits in particular, because the dispersive (multipath) nature of the HF path is hash on short baud transmissions (high symbol rate). There are a number of ways to reduce the symbol rate of the actual encoded transmitted bits. Changing from BPSK to QPSK actually creates two orthogonal synchronous BPSK transmissions at half (longer) the symbol rate. (FYI: Changing to OFFSET QPSK results in no symbol rate reduction) Using M-Ary FSK where the number of frequencies in the set and the symbol rate are inversely related. For example. Assume a conventional 50 baud(synchronous) FSK transmission. Each transmit symbol is 20ms long. Changing this directly to 8-ary FSK creates eight distinct frequencies, the particular frequency in this case determined by the value of three bits of transmit data used to encode a single transmit baud, that at are used one at a time, with a symbol that is now 160 ms long or 6.25 baud. The result is the same (longer symbol times, easier HF transmissions) with changing from a single psk carrier to multiple adjacent, simultaneous psk carriers, each carrying part of the FEC encoding data stream. In addition to transmit baud rate reduction (symbol time duration increase), multi frequency systems, both single carrier or multiple carrier, can be used as a time diversity encoding to combat dynamic frequency selective degradations such as QRM from other users, QRN from atmospherics, and fading. One final point that should be obvious by now; SS is not necessary to whiten the noise in the transmission bandwidth. In fact, there are more efficient techniques, described above, to do the same thing, described above. In fact, if your transmission bandwidth has a uniform rate of interference, either QRM or QRN, SS is if no help at all. The only way to improve the channel performance is FEC and other forms of mapping the input user data in a deterministic manner, to best match (compensate for) the impairments of the channel. Lester B Veenstra MØYCM K1YCM mailto:les...@veenstras.com
Re: [digitalradio] Why even use SS, a waste of resources?
Lester, Months of testing of all available modes on a 200 mile, weak signal, path on 432 MHz support what you say. Contestia (or Olivia, but slower) has surfaced as the most reliable mode we have found in the difficult environment of signals marginally above the noise, fading (QSB) as deep at 5 s-units, Doppler shift, and Doppler spreading. ROS's spread spectrum simply fails completely, as do any of the PSK modes. Contestia surpasses Olivia simply because it takes only half the time that Olivia takes to pass information, and for our purposes of ragchewing, the constraints of all upper case are not a problem. If you do not like all upper case, in fldigi we have added an option to use all lower case... 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/14/2010 3:51 AM, Lester Veenstra wrote: Now let's cut to the chase: * * *THE USE OF SPREADSPECTRUM, THAT IS, THE USE OF BANDWIDTH EXPANSION TECHNIQUES BY ADDING PSEUDORANDOM DATA, NOT CREATED FROM THE USER INPUT INFORMATION DATA, IS OF NO ADVANTAGE IN IMPROVING THE END TO END PERFORMANCE OF A LINK, WHEN COMPARED WITH PROPERLY SELECTED MODERN ENCODING AND MODULATION TECHNIQUES.* * * What I am proposing for consideration is the point that for a given transmission bandwidth, and a given end to end data transmission rate (user information), the bits added should actually perform an error reduction function and interference mitigation function. This can be performed using with tradition FEC codes and in modulation selection and encoding (PSK, MFSK,Multicarrier PSK, M-ARY FSK, multicarrier M-ARY FSK, etc.). My point is, why add bits to the transmission that at the receive end, do not improve the performance. For your consideration of the above, I repeat some previously stated basics: (1) Any proper transmission encoding coding scheme, will, as one of its first steps, scramble or randomize the incoming data, in order to provide a uniformly random data stream to the subsequent steps in the process. These randomizers come in a few well defined, published, forms, so it is not that hard to derandomize the result , once you have demodulated, and stripped off the FEC layers. This is typically the first and last step in an end to end process. This process does not produce any encoding or bandwidth expansion. It is a bit in, a bit out process. (2) FEC coding layers, to combat, frequently with one type of FEC, for low signal to noise ratio (QRN)(white noise), inherent in weak signal work to correct random errors, and then outside (around) of the previous FEC, additional layers of FEC, usually a type appropriate to combat bursty errors of the type caused by the time carrying interference environment typical of QRM and atmospheric QRN. (3) Time diversity coding, to combat the channels dispersive distortion in time over HF (short baud bad, long baud good), and frequency selective, but short duration, fading. Incidentally the short baud bad is one reason why spreading tends to underperform on real HF circuits compared to a flat white noise channel in a laboratory environment. (4) Finally, mapping the encoded transmit data into unique modulation states. This is most commonly done as frequency and phase conditions. For example, frequency diversity, in the form of encoding the source to allow it to be transmitted as adjacent multiple carriers or are single carriers on multiple frequencies, is needed to combat the frequency selective fading present on HF paths and to make use of frequencies that at any given instant (in this case, instant = the symbol time) have less noise (QRM) present. There is a practical limit to what can be done in a single carrier system with encoding on HF circuits in particular, because the dispersive (multipath) nature of the HF path is hash on short baud transmissions (high symbol rate). There are a number of ways to reduce the symbol rate of the actual encoded transmitted bits. Changing from BPSK to QPSK actually creates two orthogonal synchronous BPSK transmissions at half (longer) the symbol rate. (FYI: Changing to OFFSET QPSK results in no symbol rate reduction) Using M-Ary FSK where the number of frequencies in the set and the symbol rate are inversely related. For example. Assume a conventional 50 baud(synchronous) FSK transmission. Each transmit symbol is 20ms long. Changing this directly to 8-ary FSK creates eight distinct frequencies, the particular frequency in this case determined by the value of three bits of transmit data used to encode a single transmit baud, that at are used one at a time, with a symbol that is now 160 ms long or 6.25 baud. The result is the same (longer symbol times, easier HF transmissions) with changing from a single psk carrier to multiple adjacent, simultaneous psk carriers, each carrying part of the FEC encoding data stream. In addition to transmit baud rate reduction (symbol time duration increase), multi frequency systems, both single
[digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, J. Moen j...@... wrote: 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. I agree, if people had more flexibility as to where to operate it would be less of a problem. This is mainly the fault with band planning (designed, as someone else said, in the days when the only digital mode was RTTY) but also due to the fact that frequencies for ROS operation were specified rather than allowing people to work wherever they find a clear spot. Although not the same issue as the legality of spread spectrum in the US it is the same kind of issue as I believe it is the case that you are not free to use digital modes outside the allocated digital sub bands whereas there is nothing to actually prevent anyone in the rest of the world from finding a quiet spot in the SSB sector to conduct their weak signal experiments using wide band modes as the band plans are only a gentleman's agreement. Julian, G4ILO
[digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Barrow ml9...@... wrote: 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. I think that before any new mode should be made available for general use, the developer(s) should have some acceptable plan for where it will be used. In Jose's defense, no such system exists for finding or allocating frequencies. He asked users, hams, to suggest frequencies that could be used, on the assumption that they were the experts on this. Unfortunately the people he asked were ignorant of any band usage other than the modes they personally used, so the frequencies they suggested were ones used by beacons, packet networks etc. 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. :-) Unfortunately, we are constrained (you in the USA I believe are legally constrained) by band planning drawn up in the days when there were no digital modes wider than RTTY. If people were free to use ROS in the part of the band where other wide band modes are used then the ill feeling that was caused by the mode would probably have been avoided. Perhaps when petitioning the FCC to allow the use of SS modes on the HF bands you could also persuade them to allow you greater freedom over where to actually operate? Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Digitsl modes?
Thats the OTH radar on Cyprus. Rein PA0R Hi. Listening on 30 meter tonight, I noticed signals as in here: http://www.nitehawk.com/rasmit/ros/websdr1.jpg http://www.nitehawk.com/rasmit/ros/websdr3.jpg (1) see at 10.120 KHz and between 10.110 and 10.114 KHz These type of signals are also often visible on 40 m. on a waterfall display is shows as in (1) 73 Rein W6SZ 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] New question
Wasn't that part of the infamous fake FCC response that Jose posted on his website? On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Rein A wrote: 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 Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Alan: For what reason (technical advantage) would you advocate the use of SS at HF. (My apologies, if I am off base, for assuming that you would advocate the use of SS, by the “lost cause” descriptor) . Les Lester B Veenstra MØYCM K1YCM mailto:les...@veenstras.com les...@veenstras.com mailto:m0...@veenstras.com m0...@veenstras.com mailto:k1...@veenstras.com k1...@veenstras.com US Postal Address: PSC 45 Box 781 APO AE 09468 USA UK Postal Address: Dawn Cottage Norwood, Harrogate HG3 1SD, UK Telephones: Office: +44-(0)1423-846-385 Home: +44-(0)1943-880-963 Guam Cell: +1-671-788-5654 UK Cell: +44-(0)7716-298-224 US Cell: +1-240-425-7335 Jamaica: +1-876-352-7504 This e-mail and any documents attached hereto contain confidential or privileged information. The information is intended to be for use only by the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail or any documents attached hereto is prohibited. From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alan Barrow Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 1:16 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum …….. 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 ………l Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] New question
Hello friends, I don't know about you , but I feel it is time to leave Jose and his ROS mode now. He doesn't deserve that much attention. la5vna Steinar On 14.07.2010 12:06, Dave Wright wrote: Wasn't that part of the infamous fake FCC response that Jose posted on his website? On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Rein A wrote: 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 Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
Julian, The other side of the coin is that we must share frequencies (because there is limited space), so in order to do that, it is necessary to be able to understand a request to QSY or a QRL. When there was only CW and phone, this was always possible, but with digital modes, if you do not decode a request in a different mode than you are using, you are unable to share. It helps to use RSID or operate in a place where others are using the same mode. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/14/2010 4:37 AM, g4ilo wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, J. Moen j...@... wrote: 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. I agree, if people had more flexibility as to where to operate it would be less of a problem. This is mainly the fault with band planning (designed, as someone else said, in the days when the only digital mode was RTTY) but also due to the fact that frequencies for ROS operation were specified rather than allowing people to work wherever they find a clear spot. Although not the same issue as the legality of spread spectrum in the US it is the same kind of issue as I believe it is the case that you are not free to use digital modes outside the allocated digital sub bands whereas there is nothing to actually prevent anyone in the rest of the world from finding a quiet spot in the SSB sector to conduct their weak signal experiments using wide band modes as the band plans are only a gentleman's agreement. Julian, G4ILO
AW: [digitalradio] Digitsl modes?
Looks like a drm signal or digital sstv . do not know hat it is but somethink like that!
[digitalradio] New file uploaded to digitalradio
Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the digitalradio group. File: /ROS v1.0.zip Uploaded by : dg9bfc siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de Description : OLD ROS 1.0 You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/files/ROS%20v1.0.zip To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles Regards, dg9bfc siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de
Re: AW: [digitalradio] Digitsl modes?
Tnx Sigi, Are those amateur transmissions? Look to me as occupying quite a few channels and that is done on 30m ? 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de Sent: Jul 14, 2010 12:26 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: AW: [digitalradio] Digitsl modes? Looks like a drm signal or digital sstv . do not know hat it is but somethink like that!
Re: [digitalradio] New question
Hello Steinar, It is gaining in usage and popularity. Even the spam messages do not seem to make a difference. I for one, thought it would, wrong again! Amateur Radio a la 2010 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no Sent: Jul 14, 2010 10:58 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question Hello friends, I don't know about you , but I feel it is time to leave Jose and his ROS mode now. He doesn't deserve that much attention. la5vna Steinar On 14.07.2010 12:06, Dave Wright wrote: Wasn't that part of the infamous fake FCC response that Jose posted on his website? On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Rein A wrote: 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 Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net 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] Digitsl modes?
Hi Rein, Thanks, much somebody mentioned that earlier I think PE9PE Rob in Zoetermeer. We did not discuss the actual signature. No amateur transmission obviously! tnx 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Rein Couperus r...@couperus.com Sent: Jul 14, 2010 9:24 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digitsl modes? Thats the OTH radar on Cyprus. Rein PA0R Hi. Listening on 30 meter tonight, I noticed signals as in here: http://www.nitehawk.com/rasmit/ros/websdr1.jpg http://www.nitehawk.com/rasmit/ros/websdr3.jpg (1) see at 10.120 KHz and between 10.110 and 10.114 KHz These type of signals are also often visible on 40 m. on a waterfall display is shows as in (1) 73 Rein W6SZ http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
I agree. Which is why people using ROS with a program that supported no other mode (nor RSID) caused such a conflict with people running other software that supported anything but ROS. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Julian, The other side of the coin is that we must share frequencies (because there is limited space), so in order to do that, it is necessary to be able to understand a request to QSY or a QRL. When there was only CW and phone, this was always possible, but with digital modes, if you do not decode a request in a different mode than you are using, you are unable to share. It helps to use RSID or operate in a place where others are using the same mode. 73, Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] ROS Returns
ROS v4.7.0 Beta is out.. http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ S
Re: [digitalradio] New question
Hi Rain I meant on this forum ;) la5vna Steinar On 14.07.2010 18:20, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Hello Steinar, It is gaining in usage and popularity. Even the spam messages do not seem to make a difference. I for one, thought it would, wrong again! Amateur Radio a la 2010 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no Sent: Jul 14, 2010 10:58 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question Hello friends, I don't know about you , but I feel it is time to leave Jose and his ROS mode now. He doesn't deserve that much attention. la5vna Steinar On 14.07.2010 12:06, Dave Wright wrote: Wasn't that part of the infamous fake FCC response that Jose posted on his website? On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Rein A wrote: 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 Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net 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] New question
What are you basing that statement on??The Hamspots page? You need to take a look at the left column - see the red squares? That indicates that the spot was auto-generated by the ROS software -- BOGUS spots! The real spots are the ones w/o the red square - I didn't see more than a dozen of those when I looked yesterday compared to 50 or 60 bogus spots. ROS is dead! The author is killing it! Quit poking it with a stick and let it go away! Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: rein...@ix.netcom.com Hello Steinar, It is gaining in usage and popularity. Even the spam messages do not seem to make a difference. I for one, thought it would, wrong again! Amateur Radio a la 2010 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no Sent: Jul 14, 2010 10:58 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question Hello friends, I don't know about you , but I feel it is time to leave Jose and his ROS mode now. He doesn't deserve that much attention. la5vna Steinar On 14.07.2010 12:06, Dave Wright wrote: Wasn't that part of the infamous fake FCC response that Jose posted on his website? On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Rein A wrote: 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 Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net
[digitalradio] Need states for TPA
Friend of mine Andy , RG4F , need badly DE ID IN LA ME MI MS NV ТВ OR SC SD UT WV AK for TPA. He will be tomorrow, 15 July from 2 to 3GMT on 14083 RTTY . Any help will appreciate very much. For exactly sked in other time contact him direct rz...@ya.ru. Thanks. Best regards 73 Vlad UA6JD web design in www.qrz.com Sample and download links on http://www.qrz.com/db/ua6jd http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] New question
Jeff, I am monitoring it Few amateurs are, I believe. Few amateurs ever tried it. I used it before the illegal ruling came. ( My opinion ) You have to listen abroad to hear/see the activity. I would say in spite of the actions by rhe author. Users seem to like it. I like it. Nobody else here needs to like it though. And then how can I like something that I can't use? 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail.com Sent: Jul 14, 2010 1:09 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question What are you basing that statement on??The Hamspots page? You need to take a look at the left column - see the red squares? That indicates that the spot was auto-generated by the ROS software -- BOGUS spots! The real spots are the ones w/o the red square - I didn't see more than a dozen of those when I looked yesterday compared to 50 or 60 bogus spots. ROS is dead! The author is killing it! Quit poking it with a stick and let it go away! Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: rein...@ix.netcom.com Hello Steinar, It is gaining in usage and popularity. Even the spam messages do not seem to make a difference. I for one, thought it would, wrong again! Amateur Radio a la 2010 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no Sent: Jul 14, 2010 10:58 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question Hello friends, I don't know about you , but I feel it is time to leave Jose and his ROS mode now. He doesn't deserve that much attention. la5vna Steinar On 14.07.2010 12:06, Dave Wright wrote: Wasn't that part of the infamous fake FCC response that Jose posted on his website? On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Rein A wrote: 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 Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Returns
Whats so dang fantastic about ROS anyway, that it deserves pages and pages of emails about it? Remember that other new digital mode a few months ago, and how great it was, or have you forgotten abouit it already? 73 Buddy WB4M RTTY forever - Original Message - From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no To: * Digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; * ROSDIGITALMODEMGROU rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS Returns ROS v4.7.0 Beta is out.. http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ S http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Returns
What mode are you talking about? I'm interested. On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 4:59 PM, F.R. Ashley gda...@clearwire.net wrote: Whats so dang fantastic about ROS anyway, that it deserves pages and pages of emails about it? Remember that other new digital mode a few months ago, and how great it was, or have you forgotten abouit it already? 73 Buddy WB4M RTTY forever - Original Message - From: Steinar Aanesland saa...@broadpark.no saanes%40broadpark.no To: * Digitalradio digitalradio@yahoogroups.comdigitalradio%40yahoogroups.com; * ROSDIGITALMODEMGROU rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.comROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS Returns ROS v4.7.0 Beta is out.. http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ S http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] ROS back bigger and better !
Your Subject says ROS is better. Where can I read about the changes and improvements? Can users control whether ROS should generate the artificial spots? Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Peter L. Jackson To: * Digitalradio Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6:37 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS back bigger and better ! Spain kicks another goal !!! v4.7.0 Beta By suggestion of CO2DC and The man of the Vara I will continue to develop ROS. A new Sked page have been linked to ROS software. http://www.ham2ham.com/room307_ros.php Peter VK6KXW vk6...@gmail.com
