AW: AW: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
They would say . you know the rules and you have to follow the rules The thing is . who has to make the technical decision if ros is spread spectrum so forbidden in us (answer: the user) Next thing is . is ros really ss??? What I know about ss is sender and receiver are spreading the data very wide Factor 10 is minimum to say it is ss but normally far more is used In ros the spreading factor is very small . and so it looks more like mfsk on the air For me as I am no professional in data transmissions it looks like it is afsk (like many other soundcard modes) Does the ham need to have the knowledge how the tones are calculated??? If the tones are spread spectrum or not?? What about digital sstv modes?? How can a user know if the used bandwith is (much) more as needed?? Any fec mode uses more bw or more time as needed for a non fec transmission Why not just modify the rules a bit Frequency hopping or wide spread spectrum only above 220 And the narrowband ss modes like ros and all other modes (incl. chip, Olivia and similar) can be used on shortwave if the bw is lower as 3kc (like her in dl)...surely with sdr wider ss modes could be used . but not allowed Synced frequency hopping with sdr would also be possible . but not allowed Just say . any mode bw 3kc ..(exceptions possible like 0.5kc on 30m or historical am transmissions) That would be easy All modes should be free available to anybody (so fcc cia mi6 etc can download the soft and use it too) Modes where you need special hardware are only allowed if the developer also gives a free software solution (for receive only) (hello d-star, hello scs) ..for monitoring Think about changing your rules is easier as trying to tel ros is not ss .. Cause next new mode will come soon . and story returns . so change your laws in us 73 Sigi Ps: I am glad that I live not in the land of freedom hi hi :-)
Re: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
The FCC has actually analyzed the mode (to my surprise!) and says it is SS, and we are obliged to accept their determination. To use it, someone just must file a petition to change the regulations. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 11:03 AM, Siegfried Jackstien wrote: They would say ... you know the rules and you have to follow the rules The thing is ... who has to make the technical decision if ros is spread spectrum so forbidden in us (answer: the user) Next thing is ... is ros really ss??? What I know about ss is sender and receiver are spreading the data very wide Factor 10 is minimum to say it is ss but normally far more is used In ros the spreading factor is very small ... and so it looks more like mfsk on the air For me as I am no professional in data transmissions it looks like it is afsk (like many other soundcard modes) Does the ham need to have the knowledge how the tones are calculated??? If the tones are spread spectrum or not?? What about digital sstv modes?? How can a user know if the used bandwith is (much) more as needed?? Any fec mode uses more bw or more time as needed for a non fec transmission Why not just modify the rules a bit Frequency hopping or wide spread spectrum only above 220 And the narrowband ss modes like ros and all other modes (incl. chip, Olivia and similar) can be used on shortwave if the bw is lower as 3kc (like her in dl).surely with sdr wider ss modes could be used ... but not allowed Synced frequency hopping with sdr would also be possible ... but not allowed Just say ... any mode bw 3kc (exceptions possible like 0.5kc on 30m or historical am transmissions) That would be easy All modes should be free available to anybody (so fcc cia mi6 etc can download the soft and use it too) Modes where you need special hardware are only allowed if the developer also gives a free software solution (for receive only) (hello d-star, hello scs) for monitoring Think about changing your rules is easier as trying to tel ros is not ss Cause next new mode will come soon ... and story returns ... so change your laws in us 73 Sigi Ps: I am glad that I live not in the land of freedom hi hi J
Re: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
--- On Tue, 20/7/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote: The FCC has actually analyzed the mode (to my surprise!) Hi Skip, I know we've been round this loop before but I'd still like to see the report the FCC are alleged to have produced. If it does exist I'd have though a US citizen would be able to get it via a Freedom of Information Act request. http://www.fcc.gov/foia/ I know ARRL's Dan Henderson N1ND asked a couple of Amateurs about the mode and they thought it was SS but we don't know on what basis. Do you know if any US amateurs are raising a Petition for Rulemaking to move to regulation by bandwidth instead of mode ? Irrespective of what you think of the merits of one particular mode the current FCC regs are archaic with respect to digital modes and can only impede development. 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
Hi Trevor, I have already previously stated that a FCC engineer with the FCC group analyzing ROS told me what was done, and what was concluded, and I wa asked not to divulge his name. Whether or not there was a report issued, I do not know. I don't know of any US amateurs raising any petition to move to regulation by bandwidth instead of by mode. This has already been denied by the FCC once, so I doubt if it will be revisited soon, but nothing prevents anyone from entering their own petition. However, it will not be me, because I understand why spread spectrum of any kind on HF would not be good for the ham community in the US in general, and that regulation by bandwidth had its own serious problems. Remember that the US ham population is very large, and what we are allowed to do here can affect many hams worldwide, due to the worldwide nature of propagation. You need to count your blessings that the FCC regulations keep automatic mailboxes confined to the FCC-designated subbands for unattended stations (when other countries do not), because without those, a hoard of US amateurs could flood the bands with mailboxes, interfering with DX and ragchew QSO's all over the world. You have to be careful what you wish for! Hi! As you say, we have been around this loop before, and, especially since Tony's tests show no weak signal advantage to the ROS wide spread spectrum variants over the narrowband variants, I think it is time to stop beating this horse to death and move on to something more constructive. I think that Andy previously set a cutoff date for ROS discussions on this reflector, and it is probably time for him to do that again, since arguments are getting to be circular and sometimes degenerate into personal attacks or insults. The ROSmodem Yahoo group is always available for continued discussions for users of the mode and has not been killed as was threatened. I always try to answer comments or criticisms directed to me, but I really have a lot to do to keep up with kit orders for my interface in the July QST and cannot keep on answering emails about ROS over and over. I have said all I can say, so I want to leave this discussion right now! I hope you understand... Thanks! 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 1:19 PM, Trevor . wrote: --- On Tue, 20/7/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net wrote: The FCC has actually analyzed the mode (to my surprise!) Hi Skip, I know we've been round this loop before but I'd still like to see the report the FCC are alleged to have produced. If it does exist I'd have though a US citizen would be able to get it via a Freedom of Information Act request. http://www.fcc.gov/foia/ I know ARRL's Dan Henderson N1ND asked a couple of Amateurs about the mode and they thought it was SS but we don't know on what basis. Do you know if any US amateurs are raising a Petition for Rulemaking to move to regulation by bandwidth instead of mode ? Irrespective of what you think of the merits of one particular mode the current FCC regs are archaic with respect to digital modes and can only impede development. 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
At 12:19 PM 7/20/2010, you wrote: Do you know if any US amateurs are raising a Petition for Rulemaking to move to regulation by bandwidth instead of mode ? Trevor, We in the USA have been down this path before. And every time the FCC has said the same thing. I really don't know just where you are trying to go but it seems that it is again an anti wide rant. If it is you can save the rest of us from it. John, W0JAB
Re: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
Hi Sigi: It once was a nice place,, but is falling apart quickly ! Garrett / AA0OI From: Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 10:03:06 AM Subject: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA They would say … you know the rules and you have to follow the rules The thing is … who has to make the technical decision if ros is spread spectrum so forbidden in us (answer: the user) Next thing is … is ros really ss??? What I know about ss is sender and receiver are spreading the data very wide Factor 10 is minimum to say it is ss but normally far more is used In ros the spreading factor is very small … and so it looks more like mfsk on the air For me as I am no professional in data transmissions it looks like it is afsk (like many other soundcard modes) Does the ham need to have the knowledge how the tones are calculated?? ? If the tones are spread spectrum or not?? What about digital sstv modes?? How can a user know if the used bandwith is (much) more as needed?? Any fec mode uses more bw or more time as needed for a non fec transmission Why not just modify the rules a bit Frequency hopping or wide spread spectrum only above 220 And the narrowband ss modes like ros and all other modes (incl. chip, Olivia and similar) can be used on shortwave if the bw is lower as 3kc (like her in dl)…..surely with sdr wider ss modes could be used … but not allowed Synced frequency hopping with sdr would also be possible … but not allowed Just say … any mode bw 3kc ….(exceptions possible like 0.5kc on 30m or historical am transmissions) That would be easy All modes should be free available to anybody (so fcc cia mi6 etc can download the soft and use it too) Modes where you need special hardware are only allowed if the developer also gives a free software solution (for receive only) (hello d-star, hello scs) ….for monitoring Think about changing your rules is easier as trying to tel ros is not ss …. Cause next new mode will come soon … and story returns … so change your laws in us 73 Sigi Ps: I am glad that I live not in the land of freedom hi hi J
QRE: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
The ARRL withdrew its regulation by bandwidth instead of mode proposal before the FCC responded. This proposal generated a lot of commentary from the US amateur community, all of which remains available online. If you review these, you will find that most comments opposing the proposal cited the QRM caused by unattended digital stations, whose permitted range would have been dramatically increased had the proposal been adopted. Opposition to this proposal was anti-QRM, not anti-wide. An unattended station running a narrow mode without an effective busy frequency detector is as offensive as an unattended station running a wide mode without an effective busy frequency detector; neither belongs on the amateur bands. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John Becker, WOJAB Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 2:10 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA At 12:19 PM 7/20/2010, you wrote: Do you know if any US amateurs are raising a Petition for Rulemaking to move to regulation by bandwidth instead of mode ? Trevor, We in the USA have been down this path before. And every time the FCC has said the same thing. I really don't know just where you are trying to go but it seems that it is again an anti wide rant. If it is you can save the rest of us from it. John, W0JAB
