[digitalradio] Re: RTTY and common courtesy
If it does not look like a rtty signal then it is ignored. Well that does seem to be the definition of the problem, doesn't it??!! Jon KB1QBZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Ralph Mowery ku...@... wrote: Many times stations do not even have the audio running now. They are just looking at a digital display and clicking on the signals.
[digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@... wrote: It seems to me that the developer of the mode may have cooked his own goose: he declared it to be a spread-spectrum mode, and spread-spectrum is mot legal on HF in the USA. In spite of what author claims, ROS is not a spread spectrum mode. Spread spectrum definition said that the SS signal is spread over the much wider frequency band (orders of magnitude) than the bandwidth minimum required to convey the intelligence. Let's take a pencil and do some math to check this with Shannon-Hartley law for channel capacity: C = B log2 (1 + S/N), where C channel capacity in bps, B channel bandwidth in Hz, S/N signal to noise ratio. ROS1 mode is capable of 21 characters per second and -30 dB S/N. Assume we have 7 bit characters. So, it's 21 * 7 / 60 = 2.45 bps. S/N = (-30 dB) = 0.001. The required channel bandwidth to transmit 2.45 bps with -30 dB S/N ratio will be: B = C / log2 (1 + S/N) = 2.45 / log2 (1 + 0.001) = 1699 Hz It's not hard to see that 1699 Hz ~ 2250 Hz. With this example it needs to be at least 17 kHz for name it spread spectrum. 73 Alan NV8A 73 Ivan UR5VIB
[digitalradio] Re: RTTY and common courtesy
This is an OLD problem. Hams were complaining about this when I first got licensed in 1955. Only AM and CW, and mechanical RTTY then. So if you find a cure, tell us. Until then, just keep your side of the street clean. And remeber, ENGAGE BRAIN BEFORE OENING MOUTH (or transmitting) Ted Stone, WA2WQN --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KB3FXI kb3...@... wrote: I had 3 interruptions from 3 different stations during an Oliva 8/500 net last night on 80m within about a 5 minutes timespan.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Your definition might be called what good SS is and the way ROS does SS might be called what bad SS is. But how wide is PSK31? Is ROS wider? So ROS is wider than needed to convey intelligence. What's sad is that one country's regulations (and they affect me since I live there) focus on the mechanism instead of the bandwidth. Your point is well taken, but not relevant to people under the FCC's jurisdiction. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: jsavitsky To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 2:39 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@... wrote: It seems to me that the developer of the mode may have cooked his own goose: he declared it to be a spread-spectrum mode, and spread-spectrum is mot legal on HF in the USA. In spite of what author claims, ROS is not a spread spectrum mode. Spread spectrum definition said that the SS signal is spread over the much wider frequency band (orders of magnitude) than the bandwidth minimum required to convey the intelligence. Let's take a pencil and do some math to check this with Shannon-Hartley law for channel capacity: C = B log2 (1 + S/N), where C channel capacity in bps, B channel bandwidth in Hz, S/N signal to noise ratio. ROS1 mode is capable of 21 characters per second and -30 dB S/N. Assume we have 7 bit characters. So, it's 21 * 7 / 60 = 2.45 bps. S/N = (-30 dB) = 0.001. The required channel bandwidth to transmit 2.45 bps with -30 dB S/N ratio will be: B = C / log2 (1 + S/N) = 2.45 / log2 (1 + 0.001) = 1699 Hz It's not hard to see that 1699 Hz ~ 2250 Hz. With this example it needs to be at least 17 kHz for name it spread spectrum. 73 Alan NV8A 73 Ivan UR5VIB
[digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, J. Moen j...@... wrote: Your definition might be called what good SS is and the way ROS does SS might be called what bad SS is. But how wide is PSK31? Is ROS wider? So ROS is wider than needed to convey intelligence. So is RTTY. But it isn't SS. Your point is well taken, but not relevant to people under the FCC's jurisdiction. I don't see why not, actually. I understand from these posts that it is the individual American ham's responsibility to determine whether anything they do complies with the regulations. The fact that someone asked for guidance and received an answer that many believe to be wrong doesn't change that. IF someone got a knock on the door for using the ROS mode then I would have thought citing that formula as justification for believing the mode they were using was not SS would be a valid response. The onus would then be on the FCC/whoever to produce a valid counter argument. The fact that the mode was once described as SS by a non native English speaker could easily and plausibly be explained as a mistranslation. Not that I have any interest at all in encouraging use of the ROS mode! But why are you all so worked up over this? It is the USA not Soviet Russia, you aren't going to end up in Siberia are you? Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
The definition given although likely accurate is not relevent to the discussion because it's NOT the definition used by the FCC. Although none of us (US hams) are going to be deported to Siberia (unless there's some sort of agreement between the US and USSR that I'm not aware of), we CAN be fined $10,000 and lose our licenses for violating the law. It' just not worth it to most of us. There are some that are dumb enough to push the issue, the smart ones work to try and get the law changed. All it takes is ONE person to screw it up for ALL of us. I don't intend to be that person. :-) Jeff -- KE7ACY CN94 - Original Message - From: g4ilo --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, J. Moen j...@... wrote: Your definition might be called what good SS is and the way ROS does SS might be called what bad SS is. But how wide is PSK31? Is ROS wider? So ROS is wider than needed to convey intelligence. So is RTTY. But it isn't SS. Your point is well taken, but not relevant to people under the FCC's jurisdiction. I don't see why not, actually. I understand from these posts that it is the individual American ham's responsibility to determine whether anything they do complies with the regulations. The fact that someone asked for guidance and received an answer that many believe to be wrong doesn't change that. IF someone got a knock on the door for using the ROS mode then I would have thought citing that formula as justification for believing the mode they were using was not SS would be a valid response. The onus would then be on the FCC/whoever to produce a valid counter argument. The fact that the mode was once described as SS by a non native English speaker could easily and plausibly be explained as a mistranslation. Not that I have any interest at all in encouraging use of the ROS mode! But why are you all so worked up over this? It is the USA not Soviet Russia, you aren't going to end up in Siberia are you? Julian, G4ILO
[digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
g4ilo writes: But why are you all so worked up over this? It is the USA not Soviet Russia, you aren't going to end up in Siberia are you? The late J Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI, used to exile FBI agents he disliked to Alaska, which was as close to Siberia as he could send them. grin However, you are right: the worst penalties which the FCC might plausibly impose on a US ham who lost an argument with them about whether ROS is spread-spectrum would be a fine or license revocation (the latter not likely for a first offense.) OTOH, most hams take seriously our obligation, as a disciplined and largely self-policing radio service, to operate within the both the International Radio Regulations AND the rules promulgated by our respective national administrations. This is independent of the penalties for a violation. There are exceptions, of course, but most of us WANT to follow both the rules and good practices at all times, so we also need to know what the rules are and what they mean. 73 DE KW6H (ex-AE6VW), Chris
[digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Yes Its ok for us over this side to comment .. looks like the technical argument is a non starter as the ss words are as wide as a barn door and you have to pass by the 'cross' road .. or is that by pass ... As far as I can see it will need a petition to request that ALL enhanced bandwidth modes are allowed to bring the usa into align with the rest of the world as it stands now , nearly all modes that use b/w enhancement are in danger of being banned ? G .. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chris Jewell ae6vw-digitalra...@... wrote: g4ilo writes: But why are you all so worked up over this? It is the USA not Soviet Russia, you aren't going to end up in Siberia are you? The late J Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI, used to exile FBI agents he disliked to Alaska, which was as close to Siberia as he could send them. grin However, you are right: the worst penalties which the FCC might plausibly impose on a US ham who lost an argument with them about whether ROS is spread-spectrum would be a fine or license revocation (the latter not likely for a first offense.) OTOH, most hams take seriously our obligation, as a disciplined and largely self-policing radio service, to operate within the both the International Radio Regulations AND the rules promulgated by our respective national administrations. This is independent of the penalties for a violation. There are exceptions, of course, but most of us WANT to follow both the rules and good practices at all times, so we also need to know what the rules are and what they mean. 73 DE KW6H (ex-AE6VW), Chris
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
On 07/19/10 11:48 am, g4ilo wrote: Your definition might be called what good SS is and the way ROS does SS might be called what bad SS is. But how wide is PSK31? Is ROS wider? So ROS is wider than needed to convey intelligence. So is RTTY. But it isn't SS. Your point is well taken, but not relevant to people under the FCC's jurisdiction. I don't see why not, actually. I understand from these posts that it is the individual American ham's responsibility to determine whether anything they do complies with the regulations. The fact that someone asked for guidance and received an answer that many believe to be wrong doesn't change that. IF someone got a knock on the door for using the ROS mode then I would have thought citing that formula as justification for believing the mode they were using was not SS would be a valid response. The onus would then be on the FCC/whoever to produce a valid counter argument. The fact that the mode was once described as SS by a non native English speaker could easily and plausibly be explained as a mistranslation. But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself. 73 Alan NV8A
[digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@... wrote: But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't imagine they would come down on anyone who had sound technical grounds for believing that they are wrong, but perhaps I don't understand how things work in the US. ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself. The inventor is an idiot, but not for that reason. The fact that he originally described it as SS doesn't mean that he meant what the FCC understood by the term SS. Anyway it's up to you guys. This argument keeps on going round and round in circles without my help. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Jeff: Aren't you glad that our forefathers didn't feel that way about freedom from the British ! Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc,,, I'd be in good company Garrett / AA0OI From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 12:32:53 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! The definition given although likely accurate is not relevent to the discussion because it's NOT the definition used by the FCC. Although none of us (US hams) are going to be deported to Siberia (unless there's some sort of agreement between the US and USSR that I'm not aware of), we CAN be fined $10,000 and lose our licenses for violating the law. It' just not worth it to most of us. There are some that are dumb enough to push the issue, the smart ones work to try and get the law changed. All it takes is ONE person to screw it up for ALL of us. I don't intend to be that person. :-) Jeff -- KE7ACY CN94 - Original Message - From: g4ilo --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, J. Moen j...@... wrote: Your definition might be called what good SS is and the way ROS does SS might be called what bad SS is. But how wide is PSK31? Is ROS wider? So ROS is wider than needed to convey intelligence. So is RTTY. But it isn't SS. Your point is well taken, but not relevant to people under the FCC's jurisdiction. I don't see why not, actually. I understand from these posts that it is the individual American ham's responsibility to determine whether anything they do complies with the regulations. The fact that someone asked for guidance and received an answer that many believe to be wrong doesn't change that. IF someone got a knock on the door for using the ROS mode then I would have thought citing that formula as justification for believing the mode they were using was not SS would be a valid response. The onus would then be on the FCC/whoever to produce a valid counter argument. The fact that the mode was once described as SS by a non native English speaker could easily and plausibly be explained as a mistranslation. Not that I have any interest at all in encouraging use of the ROS mode! But why are you all so worked up over this? It is the USA not Soviet Russia, you aren't going to end up in Siberia are you? Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the Federal Communist Committee, would even care.. Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win.. (we weren't always like this) Garrett / AA0OI From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@... wrote: But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't imagine they would come down on anyone who had sound technical grounds for believing that they are wrong, but perhaps I don't understand how things work in the US. ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself. The inventor is an idiot, but not for that reason. The fact that he originally described it as SS doesn't mean that he meant what the FCC understood by the term SS. Anyway it's up to you guys. This argument keeps on going round and round in circles without my help. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to the fight for our freedom is absurd. Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: AA0OI Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the Federal Communist Committee, would even care.. Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win.. (we weren't always like this) Garrett / AA0OI From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@... wrote: But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't imagine they would come down on anyone who had sound technical grounds for believing that they are wrong, but perhaps I don't understand how things work in the US. ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself. The inventor is an idiot, but not for that reason. The fact that he originally described it as SS doesn't mean that he meant what the FCC understood by the term SS. Anyway it's up to you guys. This argument keeps on going round and round in circles without my help. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to the fight for our freedom is absurd. Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: AA0OI Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the Federal Communist Committee, would even care.. Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win.. (we weren't always like this) Garrett / AA0OI From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@.. . wrote: But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't imagine they would come down on anyone who had sound technical grounds for believing that they are wrong, but perhaps I don't understand how things work in the US. ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself. The inventor is an idiot, but not for that reason. The fact that he originally described it as SS doesn't mean that he meant what the FCC understood by the term SS. Anyway it's up to you guys. This argument keeps on going round and round in circles without my help. Julian, G4ILO
[digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
burkesville ' a long way from W-DC , no ones is going to ride that far , dident bonnie clyde hide out roun there for a while :) --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, AA0OI aa...@... wrote: What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you !  Garrett / AA0OI From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@... To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !   A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to the fight for our freedom is absurd.  Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: AA0OI       Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the Federal Communist Committee, would even care.. Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win.. (we weren't always like this) Garrett / AA0OI From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !  --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Alan Beagley ajbeagley@ . wrote: But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't imagine they would come down on anyone who had sound technical grounds for believing that they are wrong, but perhaps I don't understand how things work in the US. ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself. The inventor is an idiot, but not for that reason. The fact that he originally described it as SS doesn't mean that he meant what the FCC understood by the term SS. Anyway it's up to you guys. This argument keeps on going round and round in circles without my help. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett? John, W0JAB At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote: What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI12c1104.jpg inline: 12c1104.jpg
[digitalradio] DominoEX On VHF FM
I have the need to set up some reliable local digital communications (say 10 mile radius from the base station) for data transfer, and to do so in a short period of time. I would normally first think of VHF FM packet, but a lot of people are running into troubles with things like Vista and Windows 7 (please, spare me the Linux or Apple and D*Star messages, they're not realistic in this situation). I've seen some references to running DominoEX and MFSK-16 on VHF FM. A number of my prospective operators are running digital modes such as DominoEX, MFSK, etc. on their computers now (under XP, Vista, Win7) without problems. Would one of those modes be realistic to run on 25 watt (or higher) mobiles on 2 meter FM using vertically polarized antennas? I realize that the vertical polarization would be an issue if we want to get out of the local area, but right now the need is within a local area and everyone would be running with a typical VHF vertical. If feasible, what sub-band would we use? I would assume the FM simplex sub-bands. Is that correct? Anything else we should consider? Any special issues/problems? I would think that we would not have to reduce power since these radios are already running FM, but if not the case please correct me. Thanks. Jon KB1QBZ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS vs RTTY
All the QRM makers operating on three fixed frequencies, what a Lovely Thought la5vna Steinar On 18.07.2010 16:29, g4ilo wrote: And the hundreds of people who take part in the major RTTY contests would all operate on three fixed frequencies how, exactly? Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland saa...@... wrote: Well, old modes like rtty has its charm, but as the ultimate contest mode it makes more trouble for the ham community when it is flooding the hole band, than fix frequency modes like ROS. The only problem with ROS is its developer, with his strange behavior. la5vna Steinar
[digitalradio] Re: DominoEX On VHF FM
Jon, Here in WPA we've adopted MT63 2k long (64 bit) interleave as our standard. The mode is very wide (2000hz) but fits very nicely inside the typical FM transceiver and repeater audio passbands. Here's some of the big advantages of MT63 2k long on FM: -Massive amount of FEC (forward error correction) and interleaving provides perfect copy, even under horrendous simplex conditions and weak signals into repeaters (it even barrels through short drop-outs and heavy noise with weak stations into our local UHF repeater) -There's no need to have to tune on the waterfall as all MT63 submodes in FLDIGI are fixed at a bottom waterfall frequency of 500hz (2k long goes from 500 - 2500 on the waterfall) -WPM rate is about 200wpm -Works fine using only a hand mic on the computer speaker and the computer mic somewhere in the vicinity of the received audio from the transceiver We run over UHF/VHF traditional voice repeaters and simplex frequencies with great success on our net every week... even with first time users. Please give it a shot and let us know how you make out. Also, make sure your ops do a proper sound card calibration. You only have to do this once, unless you change your sound card or switch to a USB mic. Here's a video I made on that subject of calibration using CheckSR.exe and FLDIGI: http://www.utipu.com/app/tip/id/9382/ -Dave, KB3FXI www.wpaNBEMS.org --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, JonP jpere...@... wrote: I have the need to set up some reliable local digital communications (say 10 mile radius from the base station) for data transfer, and to do so in a short period of time. I would normally first think of VHF FM packet, but a lot of people are running into troubles with things like Vista and Windows 7 (please, spare me the Linux or Apple and D*Star messages, they're not realistic in this situation). I've seen some references to running DominoEX and MFSK-16 on VHF FM. A number of my prospective operators are running digital modes such as DominoEX, MFSK, etc. on their computers now (under XP, Vista, Win7) without problems. Would one of those modes be realistic to run on 25 watt (or higher) mobiles on 2 meter FM using vertically polarized antennas? I realize that the vertical polarization would be an issue if we want to get out of the local area, but right now the need is within a local area and everyone would be running with a typical VHF vertical. If feasible, what sub-band would we use? I would assume the FM simplex sub-bands. Is that correct? Anything else we should consider? Any special issues/problems? I would think that we would not have to reduce power since these radios are already running FM, but if not the case please correct me. Thanks. Jon KB1QBZ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: DominoEX On VHF FM
The reason to use DominoEx is only for FM DX communications. It is slower than MT63, but much more sensitive, so you still get good copy way below limiting and quieting. For that reason, on our local FM digital net, we use DominoEx 8 and with horizontally polarized antennas, include everyone in a range of 35 miles. I suggest trying MT63-2000, and if some stations cannot copy, drop down in speed to MT63-1000, and if necessary, drop down to MT63-500. Then if you still have problems with some stations not copying, go to DominoEx 8. If any station is below limiting, which is quite possible at 25 miles using low verticals, MT63 may not work. On UHF, where Doppler shift and Doppler spreading is a major problem with SSB voice, we use Contestia 64-1000, which works very well on 200 miles paths. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 7:58 PM, KB3FXI wrote: Jon, Here in WPA we've adopted MT63 2k long (64 bit) interleave as our standard. The mode is very wide (2000hz) but fits very nicely inside the typical FM transceiver and repeater audio passbands. Here's some of the big advantages of MT63 2k long on FM: -Massive amount of FEC (forward error correction) and interleaving provides perfect copy, even under horrendous simplex conditions and weak signals into repeaters (it even barrels through short drop-outs and heavy noise with weak stations into our local UHF repeater) -There's no need to have to tune on the waterfall as all MT63 submodes in FLDIGI are fixed at a bottom waterfall frequency of 500hz (2k long goes from 500 - 2500 on the waterfall) -WPM rate is about 200wpm -Works fine using only a hand mic on the computer speaker and the computer mic somewhere in the vicinity of the received audio from the transceiver We run over UHF/VHF traditional voice repeaters and simplex frequencies with great success on our net every week... even with first time users. Please give it a shot and let us know how you make out. Also, make sure your ops do a proper sound card calibration. You only have to do this once, unless you change your sound card or switch to a USB mic. Here's a video I made on that subject of calibration using CheckSR.exe and FLDIGI: http://www.utipu.com/app/tip/id/9382/ -Dave, KB3FXI www.wpaNBEMS.org --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, JonP jpere...@... wrote: I have the need to set up some reliable local digital communications (say 10 mile radius from the base station) for data transfer, and to do so in a short period of time. I would normally first think of VHF FM packet, but a lot of people are running into troubles with things like Vista and Windows 7 (please, spare me the Linux or Apple and D*Star messages, they're not realistic in this situation). I've seen some references to running DominoEX and MFSK-16 on VHF FM. A number of my prospective operators are running digital modes such as DominoEX, MFSK, etc. on their computers now (under XP, Vista, Win7) without problems. Would one of those modes be realistic to run on 25 watt (or higher) mobiles on 2 meter FM using vertically polarized antennas? I realize that the vertical polarization would be an issue if we want to get out of the local area, but right now the need is within a local area and everyone would be running with a typical VHF vertical. If feasible, what sub-band would we use? I would assume the FM simplex sub-bands. Is that correct? Anything else we should consider? Any special issues/problems? I would think that we would not have to reduce power since these radios are already running FM, but if not the case please correct me. Thanks. Jon KB1QBZ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
pse speak clearly into your computer have you ever operated in a digital mode on hf with a wider bandwidth than a voice signal? - Original Message - From: AA0OI aa...@yahoo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:48:34 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to the fight for our freedom is absurd. Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: AA0OI Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the Federal Communist Committee, would even care.. Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win.. (we weren't always like this) Garrett / AA0OI From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com , Alan Beagley ajbeag...@.. . wrote: But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't imagine they would come down on anyone who had sound technical grounds for believing that they are wrong, but perhaps I don't understand how things work in the US. ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself. The inventor is an idiot, but not for that reason. The fact that he originally described it as SS doesn't mean that he meant what the FCC understood by the term SS. Anyway it's up to you guys. This argument keeps on going round and round in circles without my help. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
no,but if I did ,, no one except nit pickers would care. Garrett / AA0OI From: bg...@comcast.net bg...@comcast.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 7:12:47 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! pse speak clearly into your computer have you ever operated in a digital mode on hf with a wider bandwidth than a voice signal? - Original Message - From: AA0OI aa...@yahoo. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:48:34 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to the fight for our freedom is absurd. Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: AA0OI Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the Federal Communist Committee, would even care.. Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win.. (we weren't always like this) Garrett / AA0OI From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@.. . wrote: But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't imagine they would come down on anyone who had sound technical grounds for believing that they are wrong, but perhaps I don't understand how things work in the US. ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself. The inventor is an idiot, but not for that reason. The fact that he originally described it as SS doesn't mean that he meant what the FCC understood by the term SS. Anyway it's up to you guys. This argument keeps on going round and round in circles without my help. Julian, G4ILO
[digitalradio] Re: DominoEX On VHF FM
Interesting suggestions, Skip. We're hoping to be installing UHF and VHF vertical yagi's at the Skyview Radio Society before winter sets in. I'll be sure to do some weak signal work with the DominoEx 8 as you suggest. -Dave, KB3FXI --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: The reason to use DominoEx is only for FM DX communications. It is slower than MT63, but much more sensitive, so you still get good copy way below limiting and quieting. For that reason, on our local FM digital net, we use DominoEx 8 and with horizontally polarized antennas, include everyone in a range of 35 miles. I suggest trying MT63-2000, and if some stations cannot copy, drop down in speed to MT63-1000, and if necessary, drop down to MT63-500. Then if you still have problems with some stations not copying, go to DominoEx 8. If any station is below limiting, which is quite possible at 25 miles using low verticals, MT63 may not work. On UHF, where Doppler shift and Doppler spreading is a major problem with SSB voice, we use Contestia 64-1000, which works very well on 200 miles paths. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 7:58 PM, KB3FXI wrote: Jon, Here in WPA we've adopted MT63 2k long (64 bit) interleave as our standard. The mode is very wide (2000hz) but fits very nicely inside the typical FM transceiver and repeater audio passbands. Here's some of the big advantages of MT63 2k long on FM: -Massive amount of FEC (forward error correction) and interleaving provides perfect copy, even under horrendous simplex conditions and weak signals into repeaters (it even barrels through short drop-outs and heavy noise with weak stations into our local UHF repeater) -There's no need to have to tune on the waterfall as all MT63 submodes in FLDIGI are fixed at a bottom waterfall frequency of 500hz (2k long goes from 500 - 2500 on the waterfall) -WPM rate is about 200wpm -Works fine using only a hand mic on the computer speaker and the computer mic somewhere in the vicinity of the received audio from the transceiver We run over UHF/VHF traditional voice repeaters and simplex frequencies with great success on our net every week... even with first time users. Please give it a shot and let us know how you make out. Also, make sure your ops do a proper sound card calibration. You only have to do this once, unless you change your sound card or switch to a USB mic. Here's a video I made on that subject of calibration using CheckSR.exe and FLDIGI: http://www.utipu.com/app/tip/id/9382/ -Dave, KB3FXI www.wpaNBEMS.org --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, JonP jperelst@ wrote: I have the need to set up some reliable local digital communications (say 10 mile radius from the base station) for data transfer, and to do so in a short period of time. I would normally first think of VHF FM packet, but a lot of people are running into troubles with things like Vista and Windows 7 (please, spare me the Linux or Apple and D*Star messages, they're not realistic in this situation). I've seen some references to running DominoEX and MFSK-16 on VHF FM. A number of my prospective operators are running digital modes such as DominoEX, MFSK, etc. on their computers now (under XP, Vista, Win7) without problems. Would one of those modes be realistic to run on 25 watt (or higher) mobiles on 2 meter FM using vertically polarized antennas? I realize that the vertical polarization would be an issue if we want to get out of the local area, but right now the need is within a local area and everyone would be running with a typical VHF vertical. If feasible, what sub-band would we use? I would assume the FM simplex sub-bands. Is that correct? Anything else we should consider? Any special issues/problems? I would think that we would not have to reduce power since these radios are already running FM, but if not the case please correct me. Thanks. Jon KB1QBZ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread spectrum above 222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!). A single spread spectrum signal on HF may go unnoticed by most stations, but what happens if 100 (in range) are on at the same time? The statistical chances that where will be QRM on your frequency are much higher, the more stations that are on. Our bands have very limited spectrum, and therefore it is up to all of us to cooperate in using the least bandwidth that will do the job. Perhaps it has been forgotten that five years ago, it was the practice for a single wideband Pactor-II mailbox to obliterate the entire PSK31 segment of the 20m band, displacing as many as 30 PSK31 stations. It was only after much discussion that the Pactor mailboxes agreed to move elsewhere. However there remains a Canadian Pactor-III automatic (not listening first) mailbox station just below 14.070 that makes that area unusable by anyone else. The FCC regulations in the US do not allow US Pactor-III mailboxes to operate there, but, without consideration to others, the Canadian Pactor-III station (just across the border) just dominates that frequency at will when it could just as well operate in the automatic subbands with all the other Pactor-III mailboxes. This is a good example of not getting along with your neighbors! The FCC rules may seem unfair, and I am sure SOME are unfair, but there is a process of amendment that insures fair access by all parties, as best can be done. So, if you do not agree with the FCC rules (that PROTECT as well as hinder), take the step of filing a petition to amend the rules and make your case, but do not disregard the current rules because you think they are unfair, because others may not think the same, and they may be harmed by your breaking the rules. We all have to try to get along, and the best way to do that is to observe the local regulations, which have been made for the benefit of the many and not just for the benefit of the select few. If the regulations really deserve to be changed, make your case and let the process of public comment by ALL concerned parties determine what should be done. The FCC makes regulations only for the public benefit, and only after giving everyone a chance to comment. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 8:12 PM, bg...@comcast.net wrote: pse speak clearly into your computer have you ever operated in a digital mode on hf with a wider bandwidth than a voice signal? - Original Message - From: AA0OI aa...@yahoo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:48:34 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI **From:** Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail.com *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to the fight for our freedom is absurd. Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - *From:* AA0OI mailto:aa...@yahoo.com Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the Federal Communist Committee, would even care.. Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win.. (we weren't always like this) Garrett / AA0OI *From:* g4ilo jul...@g4ilo. com *To:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM *Subject:* [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@.. . wrote: But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't imagine they would come down on anyone who had
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
The rules and regulations are a guide line they were never meant to be written on 2 stone tablets and prayed to on the seventh day.. if everyone followed every little nit picking rule and regulation the world would come to a stand still.. (the government told Wilbur and Orville that they were forbidden to fly) I'm sure everyone drives the speed limit too.. Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett? John, W0JAB At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote: What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI12c1104.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
sorry, your not worth answering.. and check back about 2 weeks ago when I said, ..Let it die Garrett / AA0OI From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:02:56 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! You've now gone over the deep end! This thread needed to die a long time ago. You want to risk your license - go right ahead! When you lose it or get a nice hefty fine for being stupid - I'll be LMAO! As for freedom and IRAQ, you comparing this discussion to the fight for freedom anywhere IS absurd -- grow up! Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: AA0OI What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to the fight for our freedom is absurd. Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: AA0OI Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the Federal Communist Committee, would even care.. Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win.. (we weren't always like this) Garrett / AA0OI From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Alan Beagley ajbeag...@.. . wrote: But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't imagine they would come down on anyone who had sound technical grounds for believing that they are wrong, but perhaps I don't understand how things work in the US. ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself. The inventor is an idiot, but not for that reason. The fact that he originally described it as SS doesn't mean that he meant what the FCC understood by the term SS. Anyway it's up to you guys. This argument keeps on going round and round in circles without my help. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: DominoEX On VHF FM
Dave, I forgot to point out that we use Contestia 64/1000 on SSB, not FM, for that 200 mile path. When using FM, DominoEx works just as well, but of course, the overall range is less on FM. Essentially, if you can work a VHF or UHF station on SSB phone, you can work the same station on FM using DominoEx 4 (the most sensitive DominoEx variation). This was the subject of my presentation to the Southeastern VHF Society in April of last year, and we have since proven that over and over again. The difference is that the data rate of DominoEx 4 compared to SSB phone is much slower (assuming an average speaking speed of 200 wpm). However, on tropospheric scatter UHF paths, DominoEx does not survive at all and only Contestia or Olivia (half the speed of Contestia) get through, when even moderately strong SSB phone signals are so distorted by Doppler spreading that they are not understandable. This is true on probably 80% of our morning schedules on 432 MHz over 200 mile paths when there is no propagation enhancement. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 8:35 PM, KB3FXI wrote: Interesting suggestions, Skip. We're hoping to be installing UHF and VHF vertical yagi's at the Skyview Radio Society before winter sets in. I'll be sure to do some weak signal work with the DominoEx 8 as you suggest. -Dave, KB3FXI --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: The reason to use DominoEx is only for FM DX communications. It is slower than MT63, but much more sensitive, so you still get good copy way below limiting and quieting. For that reason, on our local FM digital net, we use DominoEx 8 and with horizontally polarized antennas, include everyone in a range of 35 miles. I suggest trying MT63-2000, and if some stations cannot copy, drop down in speed to MT63-1000, and if necessary, drop down to MT63-500. Then if you still have problems with some stations not copying, go to DominoEx 8. If any station is below limiting, which is quite possible at 25 miles using low verticals, MT63 may not work. On UHF, where Doppler shift and Doppler spreading is a major problem with SSB voice, we use Contestia 64-1000, which works very well on 200 miles paths. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 7:58 PM, KB3FXI wrote: Jon, Here in WPA we've adopted MT63 2k long (64 bit) interleave as our standard. The mode is very wide (2000hz) but fits very nicely inside the typical FM transceiver and repeater audio passbands. Here's some of the big advantages of MT63 2k long on FM: -Massive amount of FEC (forward error correction) and interleaving provides perfect copy, even under horrendous simplex conditions and weak signals into repeaters (it even barrels through short drop-outs and heavy noise with weak stations into our local UHF repeater) -There's no need to have to tune on the waterfall as all MT63 submodes in FLDIGI are fixed at a bottom waterfall frequency of 500hz (2k long goes from 500 - 2500 on the waterfall) -WPM rate is about 200wpm -Works fine using only a hand mic on the computer speaker and the computer mic somewhere in the vicinity of the received audio from the transceiver We run over UHF/VHF traditional voice repeaters and simplex frequencies with great success on our net every week... even with first time users. Please give it a shot and let us know how you make out. Also, make sure your ops do a proper sound card calibration. You only have to do this once, unless you change your sound card or switch to a USB mic. Here's a video I made on that subject of calibration using CheckSR.exe and FLDIGI: http://www.utipu.com/app/tip/id/9382/ -Dave, KB3FXI www.wpaNBEMS.org --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, JonP jperelst@ wrote: I have the need to set up some reliable local digital communications (say 10 mile radius from the base station) for data transfer, and to do so in a short period of time. I would normally first think of VHF FM packet, but a lot of people are running into troubles with things like Vista and Windows 7 (please, spare me the Linux or Apple and D*Star messages, they're not realistic in this situation). I've seen some references to running DominoEX and MFSK-16 on VHF FM. A number of my prospective operators are running digital modes such as DominoEX, MFSK, etc. on their computers now (under XP, Vista, Win7) without problems. Would one of those modes be realistic to run on 25 watt (or higher) mobiles on 2 meter FM using vertically polarized antennas? I realize that the vertical polarization would be an issue if we want to get out of the local area, but right now the need is within a local area and everyone would be running with a typical VHF vertical. If feasible, what sub-band would we use? I would assume the FM
[digitalradio] Olivia vs. RTTY vs. PSK spectrum efficiency
I'm sure no one purposefully opened fire on your frequency. NAQP contest is a rapid-fire sprint-like contest with lots of passing/QSY's. It's also likely that whoever started the CQ didnt hear you or the station you were working at the time. Olivia uses a lot of bandwidth for it's speed and is an extremely weak-signal mode. That's great for what it is, but fairly incompatible with a crowded band where efficiency is required. Quite frankly, RTTY could easily be replaced with PSK63 as the prime digital contest mode. However, many PSK operators are so clueless and often downright rude when it comes to contests that its an extremely uphill battle. We could fit a lot more PSK63 signals on the band than RTTY... It would be interesting to see what happened if a semi-major RTTY contest was moved to PSK63 only. 73, Ty K3MM Jul 18, 2010 11:28:11 AM, digitalradio@yahoogroups.com wrote: I had 3 interruptions from 3 different stations during an Oliva 8/500 net last night on 80m within about a 5 minutes timespan. And, BTW, I know for damn sure they could see and hear my signal as I switched to RTTY at 50w on all stations and repeated the frequency is in use until the moved. I don't think anyone should suggest limiting to contests to fixed frequencies, but it damn sure would be nice if some of the mindless RTTY contesters would start showing some common courtesy by listening a second or two before stomping on QSO's in progress. -Dave, KB3FXI --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, g4ilo wrote: And the hundreds of people who take part in the major RTTY contests would all operate on three fixed frequencies how, exactly? Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland wrote: Well, old modes like rtty has its charm, but as the ultimate contest mode it makes more trouble for the ham community when it is flooding the hole band, than fix frequency modes like ROS. The only problem with ROS is its developer, with his strange behavior. la5vna Steinar On 18.07.2010 06:10, la7um wrote: Wow Steinar. This really tells the true story about your (and mine) love for RTTY (stoneage/museum,power wasting,polluting KW) KAANTEST MODE. TTY was created for cables, not radio, I believe. Hi. la7um Finn --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland wrote: Despite the massive criticism, this fascinating ROS guy has now released a new version of his software. http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/ Sorry Buddy, but I have to admit, I find ROS more interesting than anachronistic contest mode like RTTY. la5vna Steinar On 14.07.2010 22:59, F.R. Ashley 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 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] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI Common sense says follow the regulations, because they were made for the benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to do what they wish without regard for others that want to use the bands. Regulations are not guide lines - they are LAW for the benefit of all. Band plans are guide lines, not regulations. What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The regulations are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as many users to be treated as fairly as possible. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 8:42 PM, AA0OI wrote: The rules and regulations are a guide line they were never meant to be written on 2 stone tablets and prayed to on the seventh day.. if everyone followed every little nit picking rule and regulation the world would come to a stand still.. (the government told Wilbur and Orville that they were forbidden to fly) I'm sure everyone drives the speed limit too.. Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI *From:* John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett? John, W0JAB At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote: What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI12c1104.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
I agree that traditional SS spread across a very large portion of the band would be bad here in the US if a lot of stations were using it at once. ROS, though we know it's not as good as several other modes, is not that kind of SS. It has limited bandwidth, not much different from a number of other modes, and the ban against it doesn't make sense. So I don't agree with the FCC approach to their regulations, where they ban how the intelligence is transmitted rather than the bandwidth the signal occupies. At the same time, I just can't believe some of my fellow countrymen who think it's ok to pick and choose which rules you'll follow. If you don't like the rules against petty theft, do you just steal? The right way is to campaign to get the rules you don't like changed, and until you do, follow them. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: KH6TY To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread spectrum above 222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!). A single spread spectrum signal on HF may go unnoticed by most stations, but what happens if 100 (in range) are on at the same time? The statistical chances that where will be QRM on your frequency are much higher, the more stations that are on. Our bands have very limited spectrum, and therefore it is up to all of us to cooperate in using the least bandwidth that will do the job. Perhaps it has been forgotten that five years ago, it was the practice for a single wideband Pactor-II mailbox to obliterate the entire PSK31 segment of the 20m band, displacing as many as 30 PSK31 stations. It was only after much discussion that the Pactor mailboxes agreed to move elsewhere. However there remains a Canadian Pactor-III automatic (not listening first) mailbox station just below 14.070 that makes that area unusable by anyone else. The FCC regulations in the US do not allow US Pactor-III mailboxes to operate there, but, without consideration to others, the Canadian Pactor-III station (just across the border) just dominates that frequency at will when it could just as well operate in the automatic subbands with all the other Pactor-III mailboxes. This is a good example of not getting along with your neighbors! The FCC rules may seem unfair, and I am sure SOME are unfair, but there is a process of amendment that insures fair access by all parties, as best can be done. So, if you do not agree with the FCC rules (that PROTECT as well as hinder), take the step of filing a petition to amend the rules and make your case, but do not disregard the current rules because you think they are unfair, because others may not think the same, and they may be harmed by your breaking the rules. We all have to try to get along, and the best way to do that is to observe the local regulations, which have been made for the benefit of the many and not just for the benefit of the select few. If the regulations really deserve to be changed, make your case and let the process of public comment by ALL concerned parties determine what should be done. The FCC makes regulations only for the public benefit, and only after giving everyone a chance to comment. 73, Skip KH6TY
[digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
If I print any ham in the U.S. transmitting via the ROS mode I'm going to call Laura Smith of the FCC and give her the callsign of the offender. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@tampabay.rr.com PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #20 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
actually, this could be a good development because I still have a funny feeling that they would balk at the idea of calling it illegal. I don't use the mode because I am chicken, but there are still many in the USA that do. Andy K3UK On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@tampabay.rr.com wrote: If I print any ham in the U.S. transmitting via the ROS mode I'm going to call Laura Smith of the FCC and give her the callsign of the offender. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
oooh kaay ;-) ke4mz - Original Message - From: AA0OI aa...@yahoo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 7:32:31 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! no,but if I did ,, no one except nit pickers would care. Garrett / AA0OI From: bg...@comcast.net bg...@comcast.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 7:12:47 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! pse speak clearly into your computer have you ever operated in a digital mode on hf with a wider bandwidth than a voice signal? - Original Message - From: AA0OI aa...@yahoo. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:48:34 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to the fight for our freedom is absurd. Jeff -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: AA0OI Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the Federal Communist Committee, would even care.. Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win.. (we weren't always like this) Garrett / AA0OI From: g4ilo jul...@g4ilo. com To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com , Alan Beagley ajbeag...@.. . wrote: But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the effect that the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know what it is he invented, so therefore it's illegal on HF. I thought what they gave was an opinion, which is really no more valid than yours or mine if it's still ultimately your responsibility to decide what's legal and what's not. Whilst I can understand the cautious wanting to take what they said at face value, I really can't imagine they would come down on anyone who had sound technical grounds for believing that they are wrong, but perhaps I don't understand how things work in the US. ISTM that the only way to get around that one is to claim that the inventor is an idiot. Or perhaps that he was trying to big-note himself. The inventor is an idiot, but not for that reason. The fact that he originally described it as SS doesn't mean that he meant what the FCC understood by the term SS. Anyway it's up to you guys. This argument keeps on going round and round in circles without my help. Julian, G4ILO
[digitalradio] ROS HF Path Simulations wide vs. narrow
All, With all the attention ROS has been getting lately, I thought it would be interesting to see how the narrow mode compared to the wide version under the controlled environment of the HF path simulator. After a few hours of testing, it seems there's little difference between the two. The simulator indicated that they both had the same sensitivity (-15db) and essentially the same poor channel performance characteristics (see throughput samples below). In no case did one mode outperform the other to the point where it would make any real difference; both have the essentially the same wpm rate as well. These tests are not conclusive, but they do suggest that there may not be any real advantage in using the wide mode vs narrow under most circumstances. Of course, the simulator can only emulate the basic characteristics of the real HF channel so it would be interesting to hear from those who have compared the two on-air. Tony -K2MO CCIR-520-2 POOR CHANNEL SIMULATIONS: -11DB SNR ROS 2250 / 16 baud the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazlµog Lghe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quccirown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog Âe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fealoeumps ovahe lazEh/i ROS 500 / 16 baud the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick breFn fox juo3s over tes lazy dog the quæe t ´uls r?umps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown f Á jumps over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dogQo
Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
Spoken like a good Nazi Garrett / AA0OI From: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@tampabay.rr.com To: digital radio eGroup digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:18:24 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA If I print any ham in the U.S. transmitting via the ROS mode I'm going to call Laura Smith of the FCC and give her the callsign of the offender. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@tampabay.rr.com PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #20 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Moderator Intervention : Operating ROS In USA
In expressing views on this matter, please avoid personal attacks or insulting language. Andy K3UK Owner.
Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
Thank you Andy,, I'm not a chicken, never have been ,, never will be.. I'm also not a little rat that runs to government and whines like a mule.. Such a sad state.. What happened to the real Americans ??? Garrett / AA0OI From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:26:02 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA actually, this could be a good development because I still have a funny feeling that they would balk at the idea of calling it illegal. I don't use the mode because I am chicken, but there are still many in the USA that do. Andy K3UK On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@tampabay.rr.com wrote: If I print any ham in the U.S. transmitting via the ROS mode I'm going to call Laura Smith of the FCC and give her the callsign of the offender. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Skip if you call this a regulation, I agree with Garret. It is a misguided one and a victim of unintended consequences. The whole discussion is stupid and you, Skip, are too anal retentive. I work in broadcast and there are many un-updated FCC regulations that the commission subsequently licenses in a manner contrary to their own rules. Look at the FCC definition of translator and then tell me how under the letter of the law how AM and HD-2 and HD-3 stations can legally use that service. Regardless stations get legal permits every day. Washington is a town of double and denial speak, the rules mean next to nothing in many cases. What your communications attorney can wring out of them is all that counts. It is whiners like you that damage the system. Ham radio is supposed to be self regulating which means please do not disturb the FCC. I guess you still do not get it. People like you will kill this hobby. On 7/19/10 8:56 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI Common sense says follow the regulations, because they were made for the benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to do what they wish without regard for others that want to use the bands. Regulations are not guide lines - they are LAW for the benefit of all. Band plans are guide lines, not regulations. What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The regulations are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as many users to be treated as fairly as possible. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 8:42 PM, AA0OI wrote: The rules and regulations are a guide line they were never meant to be written on 2 stone tablets and prayed to on the seventh day.. if everyone followed every little nit picking rule and regulation the world would come to a stand still.. (the government told Wilbur and Orville that they were forbidden to fly) I'm sure everyone drives the speed limit too.. Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett? John, W0JAB At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote: What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI12c1104.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
so, for the sake of the argument, suppose its not SS, next question: is it wider that an a.m. signal, of good communications quality? 14CFR91.307(f)(2): (2) No non-phone emission shall ex- ceed the bandwidth of a communica- tions quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total band- width of an independent sideband emis- sion (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emis- sion, shall not exceed that of a commu- nications quality A3E emission. - Original Message - From: AA0OI aa...@yahoo.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:56:58 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA Spoken like a good Nazi Garrett / AA0OI From: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O n...@tampabay.rr.com To: digital radio eGroup digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:18:24 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA If I print any ham in the U.S. transmitting via the ROS mode I'm going to call Laura Smith of the FCC and give her the callsign of the offender. 73 GUD DX, Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O Lakeland, FL, USA n...@tampabay.rr.com PODXS 070 Club #349 Feld Hell Club #141 30 Meter Digital Group #691 Digital Modes Club #1243 WARC Bands Century Club #20 NZ4O Amateur SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and Spots all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
The FCC has been very remise in keeping up with their own opinions compared to the published rules. In fact if you go too far too the edge they will issue at worst a cease and desist which you will comply with and add an apology Based on that case you will apply for a modification of the rules. Going to the FCC prior to such instance is like a whining kid running from the sandbox. On 7/19/10 9:15 PM, J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com wrote: I agree that traditional SS spread across a very large portion of the band would be bad here in the US if a lot of stations were using it at once. ROS, though we know it's not as good as several other modes, is not that kind of SS. It has limited bandwidth, not much different from a number of other modes, and the ban against it doesn't make sense. So I don't agree with the FCC approach to their regulations, where they ban how the intelligence is transmitted rather than the bandwidth the signal occupies. At the same time, I just can't believe some of my fellow countrymen who think it's ok to pick and choose which rules you'll follow. If you don't like the rules against petty theft, do you just steal? The right way is to campaign to get the rules you don't like changed, and until you do, follow them. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: KH6TY mailto:kh...@comcast.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread spectrum above 222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!). A single spread spectrum signal on HF may go unnoticed by most stations, but what happens if 100 (in range) are on at the same time? The statistical chances that where will be QRM on your frequency are much higher, the more stations that are on. Our bands have very limited spectrum, and therefore it is up to all of us to cooperate in using the least bandwidth that will do the job. Perhaps it has been forgotten that five years ago, it was the practice for a single wideband Pactor-II mailbox to obliterate the entire PSK31 segment of the 20m band, displacing as many as 30 PSK31 stations. It was only after much discussion that the Pactor mailboxes agreed to move elsewhere. However there remains a Canadian Pactor-III automatic (not listening first) mailbox station just below 14.070 that makes that area unusable by anyone else. The FCC regulations in the US do not allow US Pactor-III mailboxes to operate there, but, without consideration to others, the Canadian Pactor-III station (just across the border) just dominates that frequency at will when it could just as well operate in the automatic subbands with all the other Pactor-III mailboxes. This is a good example of not getting along with your neighbors! The FCC rules may seem unfair, and I am sure SOME are unfair, but there is a process of amendment that insures fair access by all parties, as best can be done. So, if you do not agree with the FCC rules (that PROTECT as well as hinder), take the step of filing a petition to amend the rules and make your case, but do not disregard the current rules because you think they are unfair, because others may not think the same, and they may be harmed by your breaking the rules. We all have to try to get along, and the best way to do that is to observe the local regulations, which have been made for the benefit of the many and not just for the benefit of the select few. If the regulations really deserve to be changed, make your case and let the process of public comment by ALL concerned parties determine what should be done. The FCC makes regulations only for the public benefit, and only after giving everyone a chance to comment. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
Actually, it's less than half of a 6 Khz. wide AM signal. -- Dave - AF6AS - Original Message - From: bg...@comcast.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA so, for the sake of the argument, suppose its not SS, next question: is it wider that an a.m. signal, of good communications quality?
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Enough of this juvenile garbage. Amateur radio in the US is governed by regulations to which we agree to abide when we are granted a license. These regulations are particularly important in amateur radio because we all share one set of frequencies. These regulations are not perfect; in particular, the regulation constraining Spread Spectrum usage is insufficiently precise, and as a result precludes the use of techniques on HF that the FCC would likely approve given a competent exposition. In this situation, an amateur radio operator interested in using these techniques on HF should hold off until the regulation has been changed to permit their use, contributing to or leading the effort to change the regulation if capable. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking the FCC for their view of whether a particular mode or technique is legal under the current regulations. The knowledge that many amateurs are confused about what constitutes Spread Spectrum should if anything make the FCC more receptive to a proposal to clarify the regulation. The claim that asking the FCC a question can kill amateur radio is amazingly ridiculous; asking the FCC a question is more likely to teleport the Loch Ness Monster into your swimming pool than kill amateur radio. Unlike broadcast television stations, amateur radio operators don't individually negotiate their licenses with the FCC. Thus the comments below regarding regulations being trumped by station permits negotiated by attorneys is completely irrelevant. The nasty name-calling that appears below and in previous posts today is flat-out unacceptable. Were I moderator of this group, the offending parties would be long gone. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 10:10 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! Skip if you call this a regulation, I agree with Garret. It is a misguided one and a victim of unintended consequences. The whole discussion is stupid and you, Skip, are too anal retentive. I work in broadcast and there are many un-updated FCC regulations that the commission subsequently licenses in a manner contrary to their own rules. Look at the FCC definition of translator and then tell me how under the letter of the law how AM and HD-2 and HD-3 stations can legally use that service. Regardless stations get legal permits every day. Washington is a town of double and denial speak, the rules mean next to nothing in many cases. What your communications attorney can wring out of them is all that counts. It is whiners like you that damage the system. Ham radio is supposed to be self regulating which means please do not disturb the FCC. I guess you still do not get it. People like you will kill this hobby. On 7/19/10 8:56 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI Common sense says follow the regulations, because they were made for the benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to do what they wish without regard for others that want to use the bands. Regulations are not guide lines - they are LAW for the benefit of all. Band plans are guide lines, not regulations. What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The regulations are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as many users to be treated as fairly as possible. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 8:42 PM, AA0OI wrote: The rules and regulations are a guide line they were never meant to be written on 2 stone tablets and prayed to on the seventh day.. if everyone followed every little nit picking rule and regulation the world would come to a stand still.. (the government told Wilbur and Orville that they were forbidden to fly) I'm sure everyone drives the speed limit too.. Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett? John, W0JAB At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote: What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI12c1104.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Apparently it's perfectly fine to break the rules because what the big bad government doesn't know won't hurt them. At least according to some people. I wonder if anyone making that flim-flam argument frequents the W6NUT repeater. Wouldn't surprise me in the least. On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM, J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com wrote: I agree that traditional SS spread across a very large portion of the band would be bad here in the US if a lot of stations were using it at once. ROS, though we know it's not as good as several other modes, is not that kind of SS. It has limited bandwidth, not much different from a number of other modes, and the ban against it doesn't make sense. So I don't agree with the FCC approach to their regulations, where they ban how the intelligence is transmitted rather than the bandwidth the signal occupies. At the same time, I just can't believe some of my fellow countrymen who think it's ok to pick and choose which rules you'll follow. If you don't like the rules against petty theft, do you just steal? The right way is to campaign to get the rules you don't like changed, and until you do, follow them. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - *From:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 5:38 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread spectrum above 222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!). A single spread spectrum signal on HF may go unnoticed by most stations, but what happens if 100 (in range) are on at the same time? The statistical chances that where will be QRM on your frequency are much higher, the more stations that are on. Our bands have very limited spectrum, and therefore it is up to all of us to cooperate in using the least bandwidth that will do the job. Perhaps it has been forgotten that five years ago, it was the practice for a single wideband Pactor-II mailbox to obliterate the entire PSK31 segment of the 20m band, displacing as many as 30 PSK31 stations. It was only after much discussion that the Pactor mailboxes agreed to move elsewhere. However there remains a Canadian Pactor-III automatic (not listening first) mailbox station just below 14.070 that makes that area unusable by anyone else. The FCC regulations in the US do not allow US Pactor-III mailboxes to operate there, but, without consideration to others, the Canadian Pactor-III station (just across the border) just dominates that frequency at will when it could just as well operate in the automatic subbands with all the other Pactor-III mailboxes. This is a good example of not getting along with your neighbors! The FCC rules may seem unfair, and I am sure SOME are unfair, but there is a process of amendment that insures fair access by all parties, as best can be done. So, if you do not agree with the FCC rules (that PROTECT as well as hinder), take the step of filing a petition to amend the rules and make your case, but do not disregard the current rules because you think they are unfair, because others may not think the same, and they may be harmed by your breaking the rules. We all have to try to get along, and the best way to do that is to observe the local regulations, which have been made for the benefit of the many and not just for the benefit of the select few. If the regulations really deserve to be changed, make your case and let the process of public comment by ALL concerned parties determine what should be done. The FCC makes regulations only for the public benefit, and only after giving everyone a chance to comment. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
In expressing views on this matter, please avoid personal attacks or insulting language. Andy K3UK Owner. If you do not like the regulations, then petition to change them. That is your duty as an American... Without laws, there is anarchy, and with anarchy, follows chaos. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 10:09 PM, W2XJ wrote: Skip if you call this a regulation, I agree with Garret. It is a misguided one and a victim of unintended consequences. The whole discussion is stupid and you, Skip, are too anal retentive. I work in broadcast and there are many un-updated FCC regulations that the commission subsequently licenses in a manner contrary to their own rules. Look at the FCC definition of translator and then tell me how under the letter of the law how AM and HD-2 and HD-3 stations can legally use that service. Regardless stations get legal permits every day. Washington is a town of double and denial speak, the rules mean next to nothing in many cases. What your communications attorney can wring out of them is all that counts. It is whiners like you that damage the system. Ham radio is supposed to be self regulating which means please do not disturb the FCC. I guess you still do not get it. People like you will kill this hobby. On 7/19/10 8:56 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net wrote: Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI Common sense says follow the regulations, because they were made for the benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to do what they wish without regard for others that want to use the bands. Regulations are not guide lines - they are LAW for the benefit of all. Band plans are guide lines, not regulations. What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The regulations are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as many users to be treated as fairly as possible. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 8:42 PM, AA0OI wrote: The rules and regulations are a guide line they were never meant to be written on 2 stone tablets and prayed to on the seventh day.. if everyone followed every little nit picking rule and regulation the world would come to a stand still.. (the government told Wilbur and Orville that they were forbidden to fly) I'm sure everyone drives the speed limit too.. Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI *From:* John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net w0...@big-river.net *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett? John, W0JAB At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote: What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. And ANYONE who puts Our Freedom and Absurd in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! Garrett / AA0OI12c1104.jpg
