Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Sorry Howard But this brain dead thinking (or lack of it) about pactor that some seen to have just burns me the wrong way. I guess if I had a sound card in the shack computer I could blast back every time I get QRM'ed by some other mode also. Speaking of, where have you been hiding your pactor station at? John At 11:26 PM 8/29/2010, you wrote: Thank you, John, Sir. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of k4cjx Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 2:12 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! Amazing that one thinks that 1 percent can cause any type of difference, anywhere, especially on the Phone bands. When that 1 percent deploys unattended stations that transmit without first checking to see if the frequency is in use, they can create havoc far out of proportion to their fraction of ham community. Regulation by bandwidth and not by mode seems to be working everywhere that it is allowed. under a bandwidth regulatory environment, there is no phone band. True, if ops generally have the courtesy to not QRM existing QSOs. Those who rudely deploy unattended stations without competent busy frequency detectors are what make regulation by bandwith unacceptable. BTW, it wasn't winlink that wanted anything, it was the ARRL who wrote the proposal. There were flaws in it, but it was headed in the proper direction. it will return as we move toward a digital future. The ARRL withdrew its regulation by bandwidth proposal because it had no effective response to the factual assertions that this proposal would greatly expand the frequency range accessible to unattended stations without providing any means of ensuring that such stations would not QRM existing QSOs. When those who deploy unattended stations upgrade them to rarely QRM existing QSOs (emergency conditions excepted), regulation by bandwidth will become possible. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
On 8/29/2010 2:12 PM, k4cjx wrote: BTW, it wasn't winlink that wanted anything, it was the ARRL who wrote the proposal. There were flaws in it, but it was headed in the proper direction. it will return as we move toward a digital future. Steve, k4cjx, aaa9ac Let's not try to distort history. The ARRL was essentially taken over by Winlink, in this instance. when the proposal was written http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html so it was really Winlink's proposal, not the ARRL's proposal, and was roundly rejected by both phone band hams and digital operators, and rightfully so. As so many have complained, the bandwidth of ROS is hugely inappropriate for the digital portions of the bands, for what it can accomplish in comparison to much more narrow modes, and even lacks the basic busy detector which would allow it to share the frequencies with other stations, just as Winlink stations lack, and often do battle among themselves, for a frequency instead of sharing it on a first-come-first serve basis. As far as the phone bands being opened to digital operations is concerned, there is still lacking a practical means to cross-communicate between phone and digital in order to effect frequency sharing. This is a major reason that there must continue to be legal separation between digital operators and phone in order to protect the phone bands from being dominated by digital operations, and until phone operators and digital operators can cross-communicate and cooperatively share frequencies, it is probably going to stay that way. Our limited ham bands must be shared by all interests and do not exist just for the convenience and pleasure of a minority that does not subscribe to, or practice, frequency sharing. We are fortunate to have REGULATIONS in this country, instead of merely bandplans (which are only recommendations), to prevent the dominance of the bands from a few who refuse to adopt frequency sharing practices or technologies. If you do not live under FCC jurisdiction, you also need to be thankful for the same reguations that have protected you also, as radio waves often obey no international boundaries. 73, Skip KH6TY
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 4:29 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! The ARRL response was that the final proposal retained the existing automatic subands. My recollection is that a flurry of desperate activity preceded the ARRL's retracting its proposal; if part of that flurry included a modification that would have retained the automatic sub-bands, I don't recall seeing it. 73, Dave, AA6YQ - Original Message - When that 1 percent deploys unattended stations that transmit without first checking to see if the frequency is in use, they can create havoc far out of proportion to their fraction of ham community. Regulation by bandwidth and not by mode seems to be working everywhere that it is allowed. under a bandwidth regulatory environment, there is no phone band. True, if ops generally have the courtesy to not QRM existing QSOs. Those who rudely deploy unattended stations without competent busy frequency detectors are what make regulation by bandwith unacceptable. BTW, it wasn't winlink that wanted anything, it was the ARRL who wrote the proposal. There were flaws in it, but it was headed in the proper direction. it will return as we move toward a digital future. The ARRL withdrew its regulation by bandwidth proposal because it had no effective response to the factual assertions that this proposal would greatly expand the frequency range accessible to unattended stations without providing any means of ensuring that such stations would not QRM existing QSOs. When those who deploy unattended stations upgrade them to rarely QRM existing QSOs (emergency conditions excepted), regulation by bandwidth will become possible. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Me just thinking out loud.. Would we be talking about this if one could operate Pactor 2 or 3 on a 15 buck sound card from any wal*mart? I think not. I for one can run all 3 pactor modes having the modem. (by putting out the cash for the thing in the first place) and enjoy the many QSO's that I have had. Not every, and I think that really needs to be said again and again that not every pactor signal heard is some mail system. I have been QRMed many times because the other person was thinking oh it's just another robot. Well guess what? But the good side of this now is that they (the robots) are now on WINMOR for the most part. So now you really must ask yourself before you QRM that pactor is that really a robot or 2 in a pactor QSO. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Thank you, John, Sir. Howard W6IDS Richmond, IN EM79NV - Original Message - From: John Becker w0...@big-river.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 10:11 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! Me just thinking out loud.. Would we be talking about this if one could operate Pactor 2 or 3 on a 15 buck sound card from any wal*mart? I think not. I for one can run all 3 pactor modes having the modem. (by putting out the cash for the thing in the first place) and enjoy the many QSO's that I have had. Not every, and I think that really needs to be said again and again that not every pactor signal heard is some mail system. I have been QRMed many times because the other person was thinking oh it's just another robot. Well guess what? But the good side of this now is that they (the robots) are now on WINMOR for the most part. So now you really must ask yourself before you QRM that pactor is that really a robot or 2 in a pactor QSO. John, W0JAB
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Hi Ted: Concur, which is why I simply created the internal email filter with the rule, scan any msg in the inbox for the word ros, and place in the Junk Mail folder for disposal along with the offers for blonds, diplomas from MIT, and enhancements. 73 Les Lester B Veenstra MØYCM K1YCM mailto:les...@veenstras.com les...@veenstras.com mailto:m0...@veenstras.com m0...@veenstras.com mailto:k1...@veenstras.com k1...@veenstras.com US Postal Address: PSC 45 Box 781 APO AE 09468 USA UK Postal Address: Dawn Cottage Norwood, Harrogate HG3 1SD, UK Telephones: Office: +44-(0)1423-846-385 Home: +44-(0)1943-880-963 Guam Cell: +1-671-788-5654 UK Cell: +44-(0)7716-298-224 US Cell: +1-240-425-7335 Jamaica: +1-876-352-7504 This e-mail and any documents attached hereto contain confidential or privileged information. The information is intended to be for use only by the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail or any documents attached hereto is prohibited. From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ted Bear Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:22 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! Holy Moly.. When you guys going to drop the ROS subject and get back to interesting DIGITAL
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Julian, This regulation was made years ago and just covers all spread spectrum. In the FCC's opinion, ROS is spread spectrum, both by description by the author and lab analysis. So, they had no choice but to uphold the current ruling. If someone wants to redefine spread spectrum on HF as having a limited spreading factor (no more than SSB phone, for example), this must be done via a petition to the FCC. The procedure is straightforward. I have done it myself on other matters. Those with an opinion that ROS is NOT really spread spectrum and wants to use it in the US only need to file a petition stating why it is not harmful and what limits should be imposed. ROS will have to be given a definition designator and the FCC will then decide where a mode with that emission can be used without harm. For example, why is NBFM not allowed to be used below 10 meters? Perhaps it also should be, but until the regulations are changed to permit it, it may not be done. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 4:19 AM, g4ilo wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: 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. You are talking about real, 20kHz or more wide spread spectrum though, aren't you? If it's only as wide as a voice signal, it's causing no more harm than a voice signal (and it probably isn't spread spectrum according to at least some learned opinions.) Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Who is to decide what is harmful to the general population or not - the individual looking out for himself, or the public looking out for everyone (in the form of a republic) including that individual? 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 4:34 AM, g4ilo wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... 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 We also have a saying over here, the law is an ass. Whilst I'm not advocating anarchy, I guess most people in this discussion have broken the law at one time or another by, for example, exceeding the speed limit in their car, something that could arguably have more serious consequences than using a transmission mode that some regulation appears to ban even though no harm would be caused by using it. I think a sense of proportion is needed. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Julian, For example, five years ago, Winlink attempted to get the FCC to allow then to use Pactor-III ALL OVER the phone bands, with the argument that the bandwidth was no greater than a phone signal. Do you think that should have been allowed for the benefit of that 1% of the US ham population and therefore wrecking the phone bands for over 50% of hams worldwide? Perhaps you have never had a QSO destroyed by a Pactor-III or Pactor-II mailbox... Regulations in this country protect as well as hinder sometimes. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 7:23 AM, KH6TY wrote: Who is to decide what is harmful to the general population or not - the individual looking out for himself, or the public looking out for everyone (in the form of a republic) including that individual? 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/20/2010 4:34 AM, g4ilo wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... 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 We also have a saying over here, the law is an ass. Whilst I'm not advocating anarchy, I guess most people in this discussion have broken the law at one time or another by, for example, exceeding the speed limit in their car, something that could arguably have more serious consequences than using a transmission mode that some regulation appears to ban even though no harm would be caused by using it. I think a sense of proportion is needed. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
SO ! that whats in my swimming pool.. I'll have to add more chlorine.. Garrett / AA0OI From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 9:58:44 PM Subject: 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:digitalradi o...@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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Just because the Government has written it down on paper, does not make it right.. And not to start another argument, but incase you haven't noticed we've lost control of our Government and that includes the FCC Garrett / AA0OI From: James Hall hall.jam...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 10:17:08 PM Subject: 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 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 !
WOMEN ?! Garrett / AA0OI From: Ted Bear w7...@juno.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 2:21:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! Holy Moly.. When you guys going to drop the ROS subject and get back to interesting DIGITAL RADIO that this reflector's name indicates..? ? I am wearing out my delete key on the daily mess of crap about ROS...?? There HAS to be something more interesting to talk about then ROS on a daily basis..? de Ted -- W7RHB _ _ _ _ _ ___ Get Free Email with Video Mail Video Chat!
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
I sure am glad I grew up! MAN! Get a life! From: Ted Bear w7...@juno.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 3:21:45 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! Holy Moly.. When you guys going to drop the ROS subject and get back to interesting DIGITAL RADIO that this reflector's name indicates..?? I am wearing out my delete key on the daily mess of crap about ROS...?? There HAS to be something more interesting to talk about then ROS on a daily basis..? de Ted -- W7RHB Get Free Email with Video Mail Video Chat!
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
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 !
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
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
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
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
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: 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
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
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 !
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] 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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
I wonder where ROS would be today if someone had been truthful about it the first place? That little game of banning some from using it (for unknown reasons) was just about it for me. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
On 07/15/10 01:54 pm, John Becker, WØJAB wrote: I wonder where ROS would be today if someone had been truthful about it the first place? That little game of banning some from using it (for unknown reasons) was just about it for me. I received a few ROS transmissions within a week or two of the mode's appearance but have taken little interest since. I no longer have the software on my computer. 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. 73 Alan NV8A
