Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
In most legal documents, specific references override general ones. In this discussion, only the FCC attorneys can decide what is allowed and what is not. Until then, the specific regulations regarding SS are assumed to be the law in this country, no matter how badly it is desired to use the new mode, and what rationalizations are made for being able to use it. This road has been traveled before! 73 - Skip KH6TY w2xj wrote: I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to support such operation: (b) Where authorized by §§ 97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of this part, a station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using an unspecified digital code, except to a station in a country with which the United States does not have an agreement permitting the code to be used. RTTY and data emissions using unspecified digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication. When deemed necessary by a District Director to assure compliance with the FCC Rules, a station must: (1) Cease the transmission using the unspecified digital code; (2) Restrict transmissions of any digital code to the extent instructed; (3) Maintain a record, convertible to the original information, of all digital communications transmitted I also do not see anything in the part 97 subsection on spread spectrum ( if in fact ROS was really determined to be an SS mode) that would make ROS non compliant. Part 97 technical standards mostly harmonize US rules with ITU international treaties They are written to be quite broad in order to permit experimentation. So long as the coding technique is public and can be received by anyone, the real restriction is based on allowable bandwidth and power allocated for a given frequency. John B. Stephensen wrote: The attachments are a good illustration why the rules should be changed. Olivia and ROS use a similar amount of spectrum so the FCC shouldn't be calling one legal and the other illegal based on how they were generated. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 08:20 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS [2 Attachments] [Attachment(s) from Tony included below] All, It would appear that ROS-16 is not much different than say Olivia 128 / 2K. The number of tones may differ, but they both use MFSK modulation with sequential tones running at 16 baud. The question is how can ROS be considered a SS frequency hoping mode while Olivia and it's derivatives are not? A closer look shows that they are quite similar (see attached). Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: USA digital bandplan chart
David, Would you like to try a QSO on 432.090 using ROS 16 baud (or even 1 baud)? We are 250 miles apart, but every morning I can QSO in SSB phone with Charlotte, NC, stations on 432.095 at 200 miles even when there is no propagation enhancement, and with a Georgia, station at 225 miles. We are also currently testing Olivia 16-500 on SSB on that band with good success. I am retired and available most of the time, so just email me for a sked if you like. My grid is FM02bt. If necessary, we could start with CW, but if the -35 dB minimum S/N of ROS is correct, we should at least be able to make it at one baud if we coordinate frequencies closely. There is no question about the legality of using ROS on 432 MHz. 73 - Skip KH6TY kh...@comcast.net http://kh6ty.home.comcast.net/~kh6ty/ wd4kpd wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3uka...@... wrote: http://www.obriensweb.com/bandmap.html http://www.obriensweb.com/bandmap.html A quick and dirty chart. Comments welcome. well Andy, quick and dirty this is almost the way the FCC has dictated it. of course following it in the wide mode sections will by the laws of physics and other human reasoning cause qrm to somebody. so lets all get a life and accept it. david/wd4kpd
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
§97.305 Authorized emission types is the regulation that authorizes SS for 222 Mhz and above only. 73 - Skip KH6TY w2xj wrote: Please provide a citation from part 97 that prohibits ROS even if it were deemed to truly be spread spectrum. KH6TY wrote: In most legal documents, specific references override general ones. In this discussion, only the FCC attorneys can decide what is allowed and what is not. Until then, the specific regulations regarding SS are assumed to be the law in this country, no matter how badly it is desired to use the new mode, and what rationalizations are made for being able to use it. This road has been traveled before! 73 - Skip KH6TY w2xj wrote: I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to support such operation: (b) Where authorized by §§ 97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of this part, a station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using an unspecified digital code, except to a station in a country with which the United States does not have an agreement permitting the code to be used. RTTY and data emissions using unspecified digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication. When deemed necessary by a District Director to assure compliance with the FCC Rules, a station must: (1) Cease the transmission using the unspecified digital code; (2) Restrict transmissions of any digital code to the extent instructed; (3) Maintain a record, convertible to the original information, of all digital communications transmitted I also do not see anything in the part 97 subsection on spread spectrum ( if in fact ROS was really determined to be an SS mode) that would make ROS non compliant. Part 97 technical standards mostly harmonize US rules with ITU international treaties They are written to be quite broad in order to permit experimentation. So long as the coding technique is public and can be received by anyone, the real restriction is based on allowable bandwidth and power allocated for a given frequency. John B. Stephensen wrote: The attachments are a good illustration why the rules should be changed. Olivia and ROS use a similar amount of spectrum so the FCC shouldn't be calling one legal and the other illegal based on how they were generated. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 08:20 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS [2 Attachments] [Attachment(s) from Tony included below] All, It would appear that ROS-16 is not much different than say Olivia 128 / 2K. The number of tones may differ, but they both use MFSK modulation with sequential tones running at 16 baud. The question is how can ROS be considered a SS frequency hoping mode while Olivia and it's derivatives are not? A closer look shows that they are quite similar (see attached). Tony -K2MO
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]
Rik, Did you see the recent post by K3DCW? The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3 Definitions, Para C, line 8: /(8) SS/. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. ROS uses SSB so the first designator is J (this meets the definition) and it uses bandwidth-expansion. (this meets that definition as well) Thus, taking this definition literally, it is indeed Spread Spectrum and is thus illegal below 222MHzat least that the conservative interpretation that I'll stick with until we get a ruling otherwise. Dave K3DCW Obviously, with such a new mode, there has been no ITU description of ROS. If it used bandwidth expansion (i.e. frequency hopping), it is obviously to be classified as spread spectrum. Whether or not modes like MT63 and Olivia are essentially the same is debatable. The problem seems to be the direct reference to bandwidth expansion (but within the width of a phone signal), which, until ruled otherwise (and I hope it will be) is spread spectrum according to the current FCC rules, and is currently legal only above 222 Mhz. 73 - Skip KH6TY Rik van Riel wrote: On 02/21/2010 02:17 PM, w2xj wrote: I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to support such operation: Lets look at it in another way. Part 97.3 is quite specific about what modes are considered spread spectrum: (8) SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. ROS has no ITU designator marking it as spread spectrum. Furthermore, from part 97.307 places this limitation on any data mode transmitted in the HF bands: (2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission. ROS follows this rule. In short, ROS has not been ruled to be a spread spectrum mode by the FCC or the ITU, and fits within the bandwidth of a phone communications signal on HF. It also follows the common sense rule of not causing any harm on the HF bands. It really is not much different from the other data modulations out there. JT65, Throb and RTTY also have empty space between carrier positions. I would certainly try out ROS, if it weren't for the fact that I don't have a Windows PC and ROS does not seem to run anywhere else... -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]]
The FCC is only concerned with what happens to the resultant RF energy and what is done with it, not how that RF is generated. In the case of ROS, if the data is applied to an RF carrier and the frequency then hopped, that would classify it as spread spectrum. The rules are FCC rules and currently specifically specify spread spectrum to be used only at 222Mhz and above. If it were not for that specific reference and the statement by Jose that frequency hopping is used, then the rules might be subject to interpretation. As it presently is, Jose would have a tough time in a court of law to prove he does not use frequency hopping or spread spectrum, as he has already claimed. Our best chance to legally use ROS in the US is for the FCC to issue a ruling. As amateurs, and not even lawyers, we are not competent to second-guess the FCC's lawyers and as long as there are so many previous claims that ROS is spread spectrum, we are stuck with that definition. Our best hope is to get the FCC to amend the regulations, or make an exception, to allow spread spectrum as long as it is capable of being monitored by third parties and does not exceed the bandwidth of a phone signal, and ROS would meet all of those conditions. There are those who think that regulation by bandwidth would solve everything, but there are also those who would love that chance to take over the HF bands with automated messaging services so they do not have to worry about crowding anymore. You can be thankful for regulations that both protect, and also allow, with limitations, and that cannot be changed without a sufficient period of public comment from all users so that all sides can be heard from. The FCC adheres to such a process. 73 - Skip KH6TY w2xj wrote: There are two very common misconceptions in that theory. The first is that SS is unto itself not always a fully digital mode. and A, F, or J in that case indicates the nature of the narrow band signal being spread. So SS with a J designator would be an SSB signal digitally spread by the PN code. When received, it is de-spread to an analog SSB signal. Sound card modes are not necessarily SSB. We use the SSB process as a convenient easy to deploy up converter when operating in these modes, the modulation occurs in the computer code and could be transmitted with varying degrees of ease by other means. CW via sound card is still CW as is the case with RTTY. ROS is no exception. It is quite possible to drive a DDS chip on frequency and accomplish the exact same result only at the expense of greater complexity. KH6TY wrote: Rik, Did you see the recent post by K3DCW? The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3 Definitions, Para C, line 8: /(8) SS/. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. ROS uses SSB so the first designator is J (this meets the definition) and it uses bandwidth-expansion. (this meets that definition as well) Thus, taking this definition literally, it is indeed Spread Spectrum and is thus illegal below 222MHzat least that the conservative interpretation that I'll stick with until we get a ruling otherwise. Dave K3DCW Obviously, with such a new mode, there has been no ITU description of ROS. If it used bandwidth expansion (i.e. frequency hopping), it is obviously to be classified as spread spectrum. Whether or not modes like MT63 and Olivia are essentially the same is debatable. The problem seems to be the direct reference to bandwidth expansion (but within the width of a phone signal), which, until ruled otherwise (and I hope it will be) is spread spectrum according to the current FCC rules, and is currently legal only above 222 Mhz. 73 - Skip KH6TY Rik van Riel wrote: On 02/21/2010 02:17 PM, w2xj wrote: I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to support such operation: Lets look at it in another way. Part 97.3 is quite specific about what modes are considered spread spectrum: (8) SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. ROS has no ITU designator marking it as spread spectrum. Furthermore, from part 97.307 places this limitation on any data mode transmitted in the HF bands: (2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed
Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]]
John, The principle of regulation by bandwidth that was fostered by Winlink through the ARRL was that any mode would be allowed in a particular segment of bandwidths as long as the bandwidth was the same or similar. No restriction on content or operating methods.This would have meant that the messaging stations would have full access to all of the phone bands with no restrictions. For example, Pactor-III which has about 100% duty cycle (modulation), compared to 30% average for uncompressed phone, could easily displace any phone QSO and the phone operator would not even be able to identify the interfering station because he would not be operating Pactor-III. The result would have been dominance by messaging systems with no place left to have phone QSO's without the possiblity of being interfered with by an automatic messaging station. Messaging stations are run with ARQ so they fear competition of their own kind and you can often see two automatic stations battling automatically for a frequency. As a result they want to spread out over the band as much as possible to avoid interference from each other instead of sharing frequencies on a first-come-first-served basis like everyone else. If you modify regulation by bandwidth to limit certain incompatible modes or operating methods, then it is no longer regulation by bandwidth, but back to regulation by mode (perhaps also with some regulation by operating method thrown in for protection of some interests), but the FCC is happy with the regulation by mode we currently have, and they have seen no good reason to change what works for most communications already. Note that there is phone (wide) and CW and PSK31 (narrow) only to deal with now and digital operators are in the distinct minority, so there is little incentive to upset the apple cart to accomodate a minority of new modes. They may, in time, but only after careful consideration of all the arguments and proposals. As a result of opposition from everyone else except the messaging stations, the ARRL was forced to withdraw the petition and the FCC continues with regulation by mode instead of merely by bandwidth. As it stands, if spread spectrum were allowed without any limitation on bandwidth or requirement for third party copying, since there is no limitation on bandwidth on the HF bands, the band could be filled with spread spectrum stations covering wide bandwidths and once there are many spread spectrum stations, the fact that a single station will not interfere very long becomes a huge multitude of frequency-hopped signals that in the aggregate, that could cover many frequencies at once. What we hope is that the FCC will someday allow spread spectrum as long as it is limited in bandwidth to 3000 Hz and copiable by third parties for frequency mediation and identification when necessary. To do this, it will be necessary for the FCC to consider all arguments pro and con and decide whether or not to allow a limited form of spread spectrum on HF and VHF. The impact of a single spread spectrum station only cannot be the only consideration, but instead the impact of a multitude of spread spectrum stations, all transmitting at the same time on different frequencies. This obviously complicates the decision enormously, so the FCC needs to act carefully in order not to make a mistake. BTW, I have been monitoring 14.101 for several hours and ROS just froze in Windows 7 with an error message, Run-time error 5. Invalid procedure call or argument 73 - Skip KH6TY John B. Stephensen wrote: The current restrictions on automatic stations can stay in place with regulation by bandwidth so this shouln't be an impediment. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - *From:* KH6TY mailto:kh...@comcast.net *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Sunday, February 21, 2010 22:30 UTC *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]] There are those who think that regulation by bandwidth would solve everything, but there are also those who would love that chance to take over the HF bands with automated messaging services so they do not have to worry about crowding anymore. You can be thankful for regulations that both protect, and also allow, with limitations, and that cannot be changed without a sufficient period of public comment from all users so that all sides can be heard from. The FCC adheres to such a process.
Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams
RF is RF and the FCC does not care how the frequency expansion is done, whether by VFO shift or supressed carrier tone shift. I am shocked that Bonnie does not understand that simple principle. For example, true FSK is done by VFO shift, but FSK is also done on SSB by tone shift. The result is identical, the only difference being that the transceiver does not have to be linear with FSK shift, but it does with tone frequency shift to prevent splatter. The problem with ROS is that the frequency shift is by a method too similar to that used in VFO-shifting spread spectrum (frequency hopping) transceivers, so to the observer, there is no difference. It is the frequency hopping that makes ROS spread spectrum, and unfortunately, that is against the FCC regulations. If it were not, there could possibly be spread spectrum transceivers using tone shifts much wider than an IF bandwidth, even using soundcards, just like SDR's spectrum displays use. In that case, more than one voice channel would be taken up for the benefit of the SS user, to the detriment of adjacent stations, or even those farther away, if there were no other limitations on bandwidth utilized. 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: Bonnie you have a Ham unfriendly addenda. Say what you like but at the end of the day it is BS. *From: *expeditionradio expeditionra...@yahoo.com expeditionra...@yahoo.com *Reply-To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Date: *Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:09:14 - *To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *[digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio operators to obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use of ROS on HF without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise, hams will need an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA. Sadly, this may lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams. If ROS Modem had simply provided the technical specifications of the emission, and not called it Spread Spectrum, there would have been a chance for it to be easily adopted by Ham Radio operators in USA. But, the ROS modem designer is rightfully proud of the design, and he lives in a country that is not bound by FCC rules, and probably had little or no knowledge of how his advertising might prevent thousands of hams from using it in USA. But, as they say, You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung. ROS signal can be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other types of n-ary-FSK presently in widespread use by USA hams. The specific algorithms for signal process and format could simply have been documented without calling it Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Since it is a narrowband signal (using the FCC and ITU definitions of narrowband emission = less than 3kHz) within the width of an SSB passband, it does not fit the traditional FHSS description as a conventional wideband technique. It probably would not have been viewed as FHSS under the spirit and intention of the FCC rules. It doesn't hop the VFO frequency. It simply FSKs according to a programmable algorithm, and it meets the infamous 1kHz shift 300 baud rule. http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#307f3 http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#307f3 This is a typical example of how outdated the present FCC rules are, keeping USA hams in TECHNOLOGY JAIL while the rest of the world's hams move forward with digital technology. It should come as no surprise that most of the new ham radio digital modes are not being developed in USA! But, for a moment, let's put aside the issue of current FCC prohibition against Spread Spectrum and/or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum, and how it relates to ROS mode. Let's look at bandwidth. There is the other issue of bandwidth that some misguided USA hams have brought up here and in other forums related to ROS. Some superstitious hams seem to erroneously think that there is an over-reaching bandwidth limit in the FCC rules for data/text modes on HF that might indicate what part of the ham band to operate it or not operate it. FACT: There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on HF data/text emission in USA ham bands, except for the sub-band and band edges. FACT: FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on content of the emission, not bandwidth. New SDR radios have the potential to transmit and receive wider bandwidths than the traditional 3kHz SSB passband. We will see a lot more development in this area of technology in the future, and a lot more gray areas of 20th century FCC rules that inhibit innovation and progress for ham radio HF digital technology in the 21st
Re: [digitalradio] Re: KH6TY's Post
The comment was made that ROS is different from a FFSS mode that accomplishes the spreading by shifting the VFO frequency. The point is that in a SSB transmitter, the RF frequency is equal to the suppressed carrier frequency plus (USB) or minus (LSB) the tone frequency. So it does not matter how the RF frequency gets moved, either by VFO shift of a carrier, or by tone shift on a SSB transmitter. Unfortunately, Jose went to great lengths to establish that ROS is a FHSS mode. He does this by using different tone frequencies but the result is the same as shifting a VFO frequency in a traditional FHSS transmitter. The RF is still shifted according to a pseudo-random code in both cases. To the observer, there is no difference except perhaps in the degree of spreading used. It is just unfortunate that the FCC regulations were undoubtedly written in order to keep really wide FHSS transmissions from covering all of a band, and in the aggregate, have a multitude of stations seriously interfering with many narrow bandwidth modes. By keeping the spreading within the bandwidth of a SSB phone signal, Jose sidesteps the problem, but it still takes a clarification, or exemption, or modification, of the rules as written to make it possible for us to use ROS on HF. In other words, the FCC could say that as long as the spreading is no wider than a phone signal, it is legal to use SS on HF, but this would have to be done in advance of regular use. If not, I could use a SDR with FHSS capability and spread over 100 KHz for whatever benefit that might bring and if others did that, seriously interfere with the use of the band by many other stations on a different base frequency. Since there is lots of room on UHF compared to HF, FHSS is already legal there and a reasonable degree of spreading is not of so much importance. This is why ATV is only allowed on UHF. It is so wide that it takes a wide band to leave room for others to share and operate. 73 - Skip KH6TY Tony wrote: Skip, The problem with ROS is that the frequency shift is by a method too similar to that used in VFO-shifting spread spectrum (frequency hopping) transceivers so to the observer, there is no difference. Could you elaborate on this please? Tony -K2MO - Original Message - From: KH6TY To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 10:14 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams RF is RF and the FCC does not care how the frequency expansion is done, whether by VFO shift or supressed carrier tone shift. I am shocked that Bonnie does not understand that simple principle. For example, true FSK is done by VFO shift, but FSK is also done on SSB by tone shift. The result is identical, the only difference being that the transceiver does not have to be linear with FSK shift, but it does with tone frequency shift to prevent splatter. The problem with ROS is that the frequency shift is by a method too similar to that used in VFO-shifting spread spectrum (frequency hopping) transceivers, so to the observer, there is no difference. It is the frequency hopping that makes ROS spread spectrum, and unfortunately, that is against the FCC regulations. If it were not, there could possibly be spread spectrum transceivers using tone shifts much wider than an IF bandwidth, even using soundcards, just like SDR's spectrum displays use. In that case, more than one voice channel would be taken up for the benefit of the SS user, to the detriment of adjacent stations, or even those farther away, if there were no other limitations on bandwidth utilized. 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: Bonnie you have a Ham unfriendly addenda. Say what you like but at the end of the day it is BS. From: expeditionradio expeditionra...@yahoo.com Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:09:14 - To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio operators to obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use of ROS on HF without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise, hams will need an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA. Sadly, this may lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams. If ROS Modem had simply provided the technical specifications of the emission, and not called it Spread Spectrum, there would have been a chance for it to be easily adopted by Ham Radio operators in USA. But, the ROS modem designer is rightfully proud of the design, and he lives in a country that is not bound by FCC rules, and probably had little or no knowledge of how his advertising might prevent thousands of hams from using it in USA. But, as they say, You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
Howard, After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the following: 1. CW signals (of narrow width, of course) during this past weekend contest often disrupted decoding, and it looks like it was not desensitization due to AGC capture, as the ROS signals on the waterfall did not appear any weaker. 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however. 3. Pactor signals which have the same degree of darkness as the ROS carriers, and occur within the upper third of the ROS signal, cause loss of decoding, and it is not possible to fix the problem with passband tuning, as trying to do that appears to take away enough of the ROS signal that the degree of frequency hopping used is insufficient to overcome. Receiver is the IC-746Pro. 4. If more than one ROS signal is present on the frequency, ROS will decode one of them - apparently the strongest one - and the weaker one is blanked out until the stronger one goes away and the the weaker one is decoded. 5. Compared to Olivia 16-500, for example, the width of the ROS signal seems to be a disadvantage as far as handling QRM is concerned. Five Olivia 16-500 signals will fit in the same space as one ROS signal needs, so QRM, covering the top 40% of the ROS signal, for example, would probably not disrupt any of three Olivia signals in the bottom 60% of the ROS signal bandwidth. In other words, the wide bandwidth required for ROS to work is a disadvantage because IF filtering cannot remove narrower band QRM signals that fall within the area of the ROS signal, but IF filtering can remove the same QRM from the passband that has been narrowed to accept only an Olivia signal. A much wider expansion or spectrum spread might reduce the probability of decoding disruption, but that also makes the signal wider still and more susceptible to additional QRM. The advantage of FHSS appears to be more in favor of making it hard to copy a traditional SS signal unless the code is available, than QRM survival, but on crowded ham bands, it looks like a sensitive mode like Olivia or MFSK16, because it is more narrow, and filters can be tighter, stands a better chance of surviving QRM than the ROS signal which is exposed to more possibilities of QRM due to its comparatively greater width. The mode sure is fun to use and it is too bad it does not appear to be as QRM resistant as hoped, at least according to my observations. Another problem is finding a frequency space wide enough to accommodate several ROS signals at once so there is no cross-interference. It is much easier to find space for five Olivia or MFSK16 signals than for even two ROS signals. These are only my personal observations and opinions. Others may find differently. I still plan to find out if ROS can withstand the extreme Doppler shift and flutter on UHF which just tears up even moderately strong SSB phone signals. Olivia appears to be the best alternative mode to SSB phone we have found so far and sometimes provides slightly better copy than SSB phone, but for very weak signals, CW still works the best. Even though the note is very rough sounding, as in Aurora communications, CW can still be copied by ear as it modulates the background noise. 73 - Skip KH6TY Howard Brown wrote: Aside from the legal aspect, does anyone have an opinion as to whether the limited hopping (within the 3khz that it hops) helps the robustness of the waveform? If it makes a tremendous difference, maybe we should all work to get it accepted. Howard K5HB *From:* J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Sun, February 21, 2010 9:13:50 PM *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams Bonnie's note describes the US/FCC regulations issues regarding ROS and SS really well. It's the best description of the US problem I've seen on this reflector. After reading what seems like hundreds of notes, I now agree that if ROS uses FHSS techniques, as its author says it does (and none of us has seen the code), then even though it 1) uses less 3 kHz bandwidth, 2) does not appear to do any more harm than a SSB signal and 3) is similar to other FSK modes, it is not legal in FCC jurisdictions. As Bonnie points out, ROS doesn't hop the VFO frequency, but within the 2.5 bandwidth, it technically is SS. This would be true if ROS used 300 Hz bandwidth instead of 2.5 kHz, but hopped about using FHSS within the 300 Hz bandwidth. So I have to agree the FCC regs are not well written in this case. Regarding the corollary issue of US/FCC regulations focused on content instead of bandwidth, I'm not competent to comment. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - *From
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
Hi Jose, Of course we start that way (using a SSB filter), but then a Pactor station will come on, cover the upper fourth of the ROS signal, and decoding becomes garbage until it leaves. With a more narrow mode, the Pactor station can just be filtered out at IF frequencies and not affect either the AGC or the decoding of something like MFSK16 or Olivia 16-500, as long as those signals are sufficiently away from the Pactor signal (even if they are still within the bandwidth of a ROS signal). In the case of CW stations, during the contest, they just appeared in the SSB filter bandwidth, and therefore among the ROS tones, and some of those also stopped decoding until they left. Let's say a MT63-500 signal appears at 2000 Hz tone frequency (i.e. covering from 2000 to 2500 Hz) at the same signal strength as the ROS signal. Will ROS stop decoding? If a MT-63-1000 signal appears at 1500 Hz tone frequency, will ROS stop decoding? If this happens and there is a more narrowband signal like MFSK16, for instance, covering from 500 Hz to 1000 Hz, the MFSK16 signal can coexist with the MT63 signal unless the MT63 signal has captured the AGC and cutting the gain. If it has, then passband tuning can cut out the MT63 signal, leaving only the MFSK16 signal undisturbed and decoding. In other words, there is less chance for an interfering signal to partially or completely cover a more narrow signal that there is a much wider one, unless the wider one can still decode with half or 25% of its tones covered up. The question posed is how well ROS can handle QRM, and that is what I tried to see. If ROS can withstand half of its bandwidth covered with an interfering signal and still decode properly then I cannot explain what I saw, but decoding definitely stopped or changed to garbage when the Pactor signal came on. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Hi, You must not filter anything in the transceiver. You must pass all bandwith in your receiver because filter are doing by the PC better than you transceiver. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* lun,22 febrero, 2010 18:31 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? Howard, After monitoring 14.101 continuously for two days, I find the following: 1. CW signals (of narrow width, of course) during this past weekend contest often disrupted decoding, and it looks like it was not desensitization due to AGC capture, as the ROS signals on the waterfall did not appear any weaker. 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however. 3. Pactor signals which have the same degree of darkness as the ROS carriers, and occur within the upper third of the ROS signal, cause loss of decoding, and it is not possible to fix the problem with passband tuning, as trying to do that appears to take away enough of the ROS signal that the degree of frequency hopping used is insufficient to overcome. Receiver is the IC-746Pro. 4. If more than one ROS signal is present on the frequency, ROS will decode one of them - apparently the strongest one - and the weaker one is blanked out until the stronger one goes away and the the weaker one is decoded. 5. Compared to Olivia 16-500, for example, the width of the ROS signal seems to be a disadvantage as far as handling QRM is concerned. Five Olivia 16-500 signals will fit in the same space as one ROS signal needs, so QRM, covering the top 40% of the ROS signal, for example, would probably not disrupt any of three Olivia signals in the bottom 60% of the ROS signal bandwidth. In other words, the wide bandwidth required for ROS to work is a disadvantage because IF filtering cannot remove narrower band QRM signals that fall within the area of the ROS signal, but IF filtering can remove the same QRM from the passband that has been narrowed to accept only an Olivia signal. A much wider expansion or spectrum spread might reduce the probability of decoding disruption, but that also makes the signal wider still and more susceptible to additional QRM. The advantage of FHSS appears to be more in favor of making it hard to copy a traditional SS signal unless the code is available, than QRM survival, but on crowded ham bands, it looks like a sensitive mode like Olivia or MFSK16, because it is more narrow, and filters can be tighter, stands a better chance of surviving QRM than the ROS signal which is exposed to more possibilities of QRM due to its comparatively greater width. The mode sure is fun to use and it is too bad it does not appear to be as QRM resistant as hoped, at least according to my observations. Another problem is finding a frequency space wide enough to accommodate several ROS signals at once so
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
That is good, Dave, except for receivers that distort heavily when the AGC is disabled. If you just use manual gain control, and reduce the gain for strong signals, the effect is the same, only manual. You will lose the weak station because you have reduced the gain and the sensitivity. The only way to still copy your weak station and get rid of the strong one is to filter at IF frequencies, which is what fixed filters or passband tuning does. IF DSP will do it also these days, but it needs to be at IF frequencies and not audio frequencies if you are going to prevent AGC capture by an unwanted stronger signal. 14.101 is adjacent to Pactor activity and if you monitor it long enough, you will see the Pactor station stop decoding of ROS. However, most of the automatic Pactor activity we hear is in the US, so the problem may not be as big on the other side of the big pond. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave Ackrill wrote: KH6TY wrote: 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however. As with many other digital modes, I've been using it with AGC switched off. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
Jose, I will be using 432.090 MHz because that is definitely legal for US hams. I will be testing the effect of severe Doppler-induced fading and flutter. We badly need a mode for 432 MHz that has good sensitivity and can survive fast Doppler shifts, and I hope a FHSS mode like ROS is going to do it. Will have a result around the last week of next month. The hflink published ALE frequencies might be a good alternative for others around the world, since ALE users should not notice the FHSS ROS activity (according to the ROS documentation) and their soundings are infrequent and of short duration, so they should cause minimal interference to ROS activities. They are also already in the area for wide bandwidth signals, I think. On 20m, those frequencies appear to be 14100.5, 14109.0, and 14.112.0. See http://hflink.com/channels/. Keep in mind there are NO frequencies completely free of QRM except on VHF and UHF, but some can be found on HF that have less opportunity for interference than others, so the ALE frequencies might be a good place to try. Of course, ALE users MUST, by US law, be sure the frequency is clear before transmitting, and the same applies to ROS users. We all have to share frequencies, since no frequencies are owned by anyone, but are used on a first-come, first-served basis. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Please, give a frequency alternative to 14.101 *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* lun,22 febrero, 2010 22:39 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? That is good, Dave, except for receivers that distort heavily when the AGC is disabled. If you just use manual gain control, and reduce the gain for strong signals, the effect is the same, only manual. You will lose the weak station because you have reduced the gain and the sensitivity. The only way to still copy your weak station and get rid of the strong one is to filter at IF frequencies, which is what fixed filters or passband tuning does. IF DSP will do it also these days, but it needs to be at IF frequencies and not audio frequencies if you are going to prevent AGC capture by an unwanted stronger signal. 14.101 is adjacent to Pactor activity and if you monitor it long enough, you will see the Pactor station stop decoding of ROS. However, most of the automatic Pactor activity we hear is in the US, so the problem may not be as big on the other side of the big pond. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave Ackrill wrote: KH6TY wrote: 2. Pactor signals of 500 Hz width, outside the ROS signal, that capture the AGC, do desensitize the receiver and cause loss of decoding, as expected. Passband tuning takes care of that problem however. As with many other digital modes, I've been using it with AGC switched off. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
I agree with Andy - try 14.109 USB next. ALE is wideband, but of short duration. It is worth a try, I think. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: That is true, narrow band interference cause a minimal interference to ROS, and at the same form, ROS cause minimal interference to narrow band modes. The problem is if you join two wide modes at the same frequency. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:23 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? The hflink published ALE frequencies might be a good alternative for others around the world, since ALE users should not notice the FHSS ROS activity (according to the ROS documentation) and their soundings are infrequent and of short duration, so they should cause minimal interference to ROS activities.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage?
Andy, you have used ALE. What center frequency or suppressed carrier frequency should be used to be on the ALE channel at 14.109? 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: One thing, 14.109 means that first tone is on 14.109.4 and last tone is on 14.111.65 According to that, wich would the best option? *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:46 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? I agree with Andy - try 14.109 USB next. ALE is wideband, but of short duration. It is worth a try, I think. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: That is true, narrow band interference cause a minimal interference to ROS, and at the same form, ROS cause minimal interference to narrow band modes. The problem is if you join two wide modes at the same frequency. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* lun,22 febrero, 2010 23:23 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS Advantage? The hflink published ALE frequencies might be a good alternative for others around the world, since ALE users should not notice the FHSS ROS activity (according to the ROS documentation) and their soundings are infrequent and of short duration, so they should cause minimal interference to ROS activities.
Re: [digitalradio] Curious sound card modes question -
John, Given sufficient carrier suppression, any tone inputed to the microphone makes the transmitter output a pure RF carrier at a frequency of the suppressed carrier frequency plus the tone frequency for USB, or minus the tone frequency for LSB. Whatever you do with the tones determines what RF carriers come out. You can key the tones, or shift the tone frequencies, etc., and the RF output will follow. The ARRL Handbook usually has an explanation of this. Hope that answers the question. 73 - Skip KH6TY John wrote: So as to not continue growing the ROS legality discussion even further, I would like to ask a fairly simple question. How will the modulation be determined from any SSB transmitter when the source of the modulation is via the microphone audio input of that transmitter? Simply stated, how would any digital mode create anything other than some form of FSK simply by inputting a tone at the microphone input? Regardless of the software being used to generate the tone(s), at any given time there is nothing more than the absence or presence of a tone at the audio input of the transmitter. This is true of HRD's DM780, MixW modes, MMSSTV, or many other sound card driven software packages. They all have one thing in common, they generate a sequence of tones which is then processed by the very same transmitter in the very same way. The maximum output bandwidth is supposed to be somewhat limited in the bandpass of the transmitter circuitry (which is NOT being altered). Again, NO transmitter circuitry is being altered in any way that I am aware of. With this discussion, how do we arbitrarily change the transmitter output definitions? I am truly asking because that is a concept beyond my feeble mind. I really do not know. To me, regardless of the source of the modulation itself, the modulation still remains an offset of the carrier frequency by the frequency of the input tone. To me, the discussion of particular FCC designators for any of these modes is rather moot, unless there is some method to tie the two together. To simply start an argument about a particular FCC rule, without showing the correlation to the subject is somewhat like arguing the color of orange peels in an apple pie instruction sheet. They simply don't necessarily relate. Both may have valid points about their own arguments, but the tow simply do not go together. Am I missing something besides a few marbles now? My head is spinning from all these rules being bandied about, that may have no application here at all. John KE5HAM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question -
It will be spread spectrum if the tone frequencies are controlled by a code as explained in the ROS documentation: A system is defined to be a spread-spectrum system if it fulfills the following requirements: 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Note that all three conditions must be met to be considered spread spectrum. I don;t know if it would be possible to send the data in less bandwidth, but, for example, PSK31 accomplishes the same typing speed in a bandwidth of 31 Hz, instead of in 2000 Hz, so ROS is probably truly spread-spectrum. Remember that spread spectrum was conceived as a way of coding transmissions so they could not be intercepted and decoded. In fact actress Hedy Lamarr invented spread spectrum, and you can read that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr. The difference is the use of a code to spread the data and signals to avoid detection and monitoring by those without the same code. Download the documentation from www. rosmodem.wordpress.com and read about spread spectrum and the ROS implementation. That will make it clear I think. Remembering that a single tone creates a single RF carrier makes it easy to see how just about anything can be done with tones, including sending data over several tones at once so if one carrier is lost, others carry the same data, or using a psuedo-random code to determine the carrier frequencies, as I think is done in ROS. That documentation also explains the difference between FHSS and modes like MFSK16. However, a main point is that the data does not have to be scattered over such a wide bandwidth to achieve communication, but ROS does, so it qualifies as spread spectrum. If you have a receive bandwith of 10,000 Hz, and you spread over that bandwidth, you really are using way more bandwidth than necessary to send the same data at a given speed. MT63 uses 64 carriers with the data divided among the carriers for redundancy and about 40% of the signal can be obilterated by QRM and still produce good copy. I think the difference with ROS is that the carrier frequencies are varied according to a code, instead of being at a fixed position, but I am no expert on modes, so someone else can probably explain it better and with more accuracy. Generally it is qualifies as spread spectrum if a code is used for the spreading, and in military communications (and even cell phones, I think) the code prevents anyone else from reconstructing the signal so that the intelligence can be recovered if they do not possess the same code. 73 - Skip KH6TY John wrote: Thanks Skip, Unfortunately, this really does not get to the crux of my question(s). I understand how an SSB transmitter works, but that is not really what I am after. What I am driving at is if like this. If I use DM780 to run some version of digital mode via an SSB transceiver, it uses a tone or series of tone modulation/shifting to create the output of the transmitter, and not one single mode is called spread spectrum output, but is called FSK or PSK, etc. Now, we get into the aforementioned discussion regarding ROS, and suddenly, still via the microphone input of the same transmitter, those shifted frequencies are now called spread spectrum instead. I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding, other than the author happened to call his scheme spread spectrum in his technical documentation. Thanks John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: John, Given sufficient carrier suppression, any tone inputed to the microphone makes the transmitter output a pure RF carrier at a frequency of the suppressed carrier frequency plus the tone frequency for USB, or minus the tone frequency for LSB. Whatever you do with the tones determines what RF carriers come out. You can key the tones, or shift the tone frequencies, etc., and the RF output will follow. The ARRL Handbook usually has an explanation of this. Hope that answers the question. 73 - Skip KH6TY John wrote: So as to not continue growing the ROS legality discussion even further, I would like to ask a fairly simple question. How will the modulation be determined from any SSB transmitter when the source of the modulation is via
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question -
The only entity competent to answer the question is the FCC, and the accepted procedure when one is not sure is to ask for a clarification. Unfortunately, it is everyone's legal responsibility to understand the law and obey it. Since most of use cannot do that, we have to turn to lawyers to do it. You may or may not like the answer given, but the FCC does try to protect the ham bands for everyone and seems to make interpretations on that basis. Digital users are a tiny minority of users of the bands, but the FCC is accountable to all hams, so they must try to do what is right for all hams, not just for a minority. If it were not for that approach, the HF bands today might be covered with automatic messaging systems and it would be hard to even find a place to play or have a QSO without interference from an automatic station that does not listen first, does not QRL, and does not share frequencies. We may not like the time it takes for the process to play out, but that gives everyone a chance to present their case before any rules are made - EVERYONE, not just a vocal minority. 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: John wrote: Thanks Skip, Unfortunately, this really does not get to the crux of my question(s). I understand how an SSB transmitter works, but that is not really what I am after. What I am driving at is if like this. If I use DM780 to run some version of digital mode via an SSB transceiver, it uses a tone or series of tone modulation/shifting to create the output of the transmitter, and not one single mode is called spread spectrum output, but is called FSK or PSK, etc. Now, we get into the aforementioned discussion regarding ROS, and suddenly, still via the microphone input of the same transmitter, those shifted frequencies are now called spread spectrum instead. I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding, other than the author happened to call his scheme spread spectrum in his technical documentation. OFDM used in Pactor 3 is legal due to it's low symbol rates and SSB sized effective bandwidth. If prior to P3 someone asked if FDM was legal on HF most would say no. Traditional FDM (frequency division multiplexing) as practiced in the real world would not ever be legal on HF. So technically it's FDM, but practically, it's not, as it's much narrower bandwidth. Lumping ROS in with Spread spectrum is similar. You can use FDM or SS approaches on an audio modulated sideband signal and not meet practical definitions. quack test- walks like a duck, must be a duck. Regarding the perfect SSB transmitter sending a 1khz tone equaling CW at a 1khz beat frequency, we all know there is a big difference between theoretical and reality. But in theory, ROS, P3, whatever could be represented by multiple transmitter signals, so could technically fall into legal gray area. I'm sure if we tried hard enough we could find a way to decide it's illegal, and should be banned. And in reality, the FCC won't care, as it did not meet the quack test of spread spectrum. :-) I don't have a horse in this race, however. :-) Have fun, Alan KM4BA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question -
That is only ONE of the three conditions outlined by Jose. I thought I did not need to repeat the other two. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave AA6YQ wrote: re PSK31 accomplishes the same typing speed in a bandwidth of 31 Hz, instead of in 2000 Hz, so ROS is probably truly spread-spectrum. Applying this logic to RTTY, which employs ~10X the bandwidth employed by PSK31, would lead us to conclude that RTTY is also spread spectrum. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]*on Behalf Of *KH6TY *Sent:* Monday, February 22, 2010 8:30 PM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question - It will be spread spectrum if the tone frequencies are controlled by a code as explained in the ROS documentation: A system is defined to be a spread-spectrum system if it fulfills the following requirements: 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Note that all three conditions must be met to be considered spread spectrum. I don;t know if it would be possible to send the data in less bandwidth, but, for example, PSK31 accomplishes the same typing speed in a bandwidth of 31 Hz, instead of in 2000 Hz, so ROS is probably truly spread-spectrum. Remember that spread spectrum was conceived as a way of coding transmissions so they could not be intercepted and decoded. In fact actress Hedy Lamarr invented spread spectrum, and you can read that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr. The difference is the use of a code to spread the data and signals to avoid detection and monitoring by those without the same code. Download the documentation from www. rosmodem.wordpress.com and read about spread spectrum and the ROS implementation. That will make it clear I think. Remembering that a single tone creates a single RF carrier makes it easy to see how just about anything can be done with tones, including sending data over several tones at once so if one carrier is lost, others carry the same data, or using a psuedo-random code to determine the carrier frequencies, as I think is done in ROS. That documentation also explains the difference between FHSS and modes like MFSK16. However, a main point is that the data does not have to be scattered over such a wide bandwidth to achieve communication, but ROS does, so it qualifies as spread spectrum. If you have a receive bandwith of 10,000 Hz, and you spread over that bandwidth, you really are using way more bandwidth than necessary to send the same data at a given speed. MT63 uses 64 carriers with the data divided among the carriers for redundancy and about 40% of the signal can be obilterated by QRM and still produce good copy. I think the difference with ROS is that the carrier frequencies are varied according to a code, instead of being at a fixed position, but I am no expert on modes, so someone else can probably explain it better and with more accuracy. Generally it is qualifies as spread spectrum if a code is used for the spreading, and in military communications (and even cell phones, I think) the code prevents anyone else from reconstructing the signal so that the intelligence can be recovered if they do not possess the same code. 73 - Skip KH6TY John wrote: Thanks Skip, Unfortunately, this really does not get to the crux of my question(s). I understand how an SSB transmitter works, but that is not really what I am after. What I am driving at is if like this. If I use DM780 to run some version of digital mode via an SSB transceiver, it uses a tone or series of tone modulation/shifting to create the output of the transmitter, and not one single mode is called spread spectrum output, but is called FSK or PSK, etc. Now, we get into the aforementioned discussion regarding ROS, and suddenly, still via the microphone input of the same transmitter, those shifted frequencies are now called spread spectrum instead. I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding, other than the author happened to call his scheme spread spectrum in his technical documentation. Thanks John KE5HAM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: John, Given sufficient carrier
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question -
Gentlemen, I have spent way too much time with my limited knowledge trying to make some sense of this issue and answer questions. I am going to use ROS on UHF only anyway, and it is legal there no matter if it is FHSS or not, so I'll leave it to the rest of you to discuss the issue. Thanks for the bandwidth and I hope it can be used on HF! 73, Skip, KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Curious sound card modes question -
No, the shift on RTTY and other soundcard modes is not determined by a pseudo random code but always known and predictable. Instead, the tones on ROS are driven by a code signal. To quote from the ROS documentation, 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. The original intent of spread spectrum was to make it impossible to monitor without possessing the despreading code, but ROS can be monitored. There is a good chance that the FCC will allow us to use ROS on HF - why not! But as the rules are written right now, ROS is FHSS - by design, and it does not matter if the description is changed or not, so it is necessary to get a waiver or other FCC agreement that we can use it on HF. ROS can be copied by third parties, and is no wider than a phone signal, so I cannot think of any reason the FCC would decline, but they have to give permission. That is just the way it works, because that is how the rules happen to have been written in the past. If the spreading is NOT actually accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data then ROS is not spread spectrum and there is no problem. 73 - Skip KH6TY jhaynesatalumni wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, John ke5h...@... wrote: Thanks Skip, Unfortunately, this really does not get to the crux of my question(s). I understand how an SSB transmitter works, but that is not really what I am after. What I am driving at is if like this. If I use DM780 to run some version of digital mode via an SSB transceiver, it uses a tone or series of tone modulation/shifting to create the output of the transmitter, and not one single mode is called spread spectrum output, but is called FSK or PSK, etc. Now, we get into the aforementioned discussion regarding ROS, and suddenly, still via the microphone input of the same transmitter, those shifted frequencies are now called spread spectrum instead. I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding, other than the author happened to call his scheme spread spectrum in his technical documentation. That's a good question. If we run RTTY with 850 Hz shift like we did in the old days, has that turned into spread spectrum?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Only the ARRL technical staff has ruled it to be spread spectrum and therefore not legal on HF under FCC jurisdiction. However, the FCC itself has not ruled yet, so it may still be found to be legal. We will not know until the FCC issues an opinion. My personal guess is that they will say it is legal as long as the bandwidth never exceeds that of a SSB phone signal, even though it is FHSS. However, note that ROS cannot handle wide signal QRM, such as a 500 Hz-wide Pactor signal in the upper third of the signal width. The QRM-handling ability of spread spectrum is a function of the degree of spreading, compared to the width of interfering signals, and with only a 2500 Hz width to work with, it is only resistant to QRM from narrow modes, such as PSK31, but it is wide like Pactor-III, so it belongs in the highest segment of the data portions of the bands. Unfortunately, that is also where other wide modes hang out, so ROS will have to look for a home where there are few interfering signals. On 14.101, ROS had a lot of trouble from Pactor and even from multiple CW signals during the contest this past weekend. ROS would not print in the presence of the QRM and printed fine when the QRM left. I am hoping it has advantages for weak-signal work on UHF where it is inarguably legal. That is where I am going to use it. 73 - Skip KH6TY wd4kpd wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, ocypret n5...@... wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? it seems to be whatever you want ! david/wd4kpd
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Next step is to formally petition the FCC to allow SS if the bandwidth does not exceed 3000 Hz, or the width of a SSB phone signal. Mark Miller, N5RFX, has experience in submitting petitions to the FCC, and had one granted. In case anyone wishes to pursue this further, he may be able to help. If ROS is really worth saving for US hams, it is worth fighting for! 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz. So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is. e,g. If I came out with a new mode that was just CW, but claimed it was SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to get any use in the USA. Andy K3UK On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:15 PM, wd4kpd wd4...@suddenlink.net mailto:wd4...@suddenlink.net wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, ocypret n5...@... wrote: So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not? it seems to be whatever you want ! david/wd4kpd
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Jose, You will have to disclose the algorithm that determines the spreading on ROS (independent of the data), or bandwidth expansion, if that is actually used. You will have to convince technical people that will show your new description to our FCC that your original description was wrong and prove it by revealing your code. I think this is the only way to get the FCC opinion reversed. You now have a difficult task before you, but I wish you success, as ROS is a really fun mode. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Is legal because ROS is a FSK modulation. *De:* ocypret n5...@arrl.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* mar,23 febrero, 2010 21:26 *Asunto:* [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not?
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Jose, I am only trying to suggest whatever ideas I can to get ROS declared to be legal. You have made such a strong case for FHSS already, that only saying you were mistaken probably will not convince the FCC. They will assume you are only changing the description so ROS appears to be legal and will demand proof that it is not FHSS to change their minds. This is only my personal, unbiased, opinion, as I would like very much for you to succeed. Essentially, you must PROVE that, spreading is NOT accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. How do you do that without disclosing the code? At this point, I doubt that the FCC will believe mere words, because there is so much pressure to allow ROS in HF in this country. Keep in mind the mess that Toyota finds itself by previously denying there is any substantial problem with unattended acceleration or braking of their cars. That may still prove to be true (i.e. not substantial), but the government here is now demanding that Toyota SHOW proof that there is no problem, and not merely saying there is not. This is currently a very hot topic with the government and Congress and on the minds of everyone. So I assume likewise that PROOF will have to be SHOWN that there is no spreading signal used in ROS. Mere words will probably not be enough, and there is probably only ONE chance to succeed, so you need to be successful the first time. If you decide to only change the description and nothing further, I sincerely hope I am wrong, and I could well be. But, that is your decision, not mine. If you need to protect your invention, then just fully document and witness it, or do whatever is necessary in your country and others, and be free to do whatever is required to win this battle. Good luck! 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Hi, KH6. I only i am going to describe in a technicals article how run the mode. If FCC want the code they will have to buy it me, that is obvious. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:31 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, You will have to disclose the algorithm that determines the spreading on ROS (independent of the data), or bandwidth expansion, if that is actually used. You will have to convince technical people that will show your new description to our FCC that your original description was wrong and prove it by revealing your code. I think this is the only way to get the FCC opinion reversed. You now have a difficult task before you, but I wish you success, as ROS is a really fun mode. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Is legal because ROS is a FSK modulation. *De:* ocypret n5...@arrl.net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* mar,23 febrero, 2010 21:26 *Asunto:* [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
Dave, It is probably wrong to assume that there are any groups opposed to using ROS in the US. I don't see that at all. US hams generally try to follow the FCC regulations as best they can, and if they are not sure what they mean, they ask. If the reply is not to their liking, that is too bad, but they prefer to follow the law. I don't think it is any more complicated than that. The thing to do is be as smart as possible and do what is necessary to either get the FCC opinion reversed, or petition to allow spread spectrum (that can be monitored by third parties, as ROS already can be) if the bandwidth does not exceed the width of a SSB phone signal. The people at the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, which is probably the one that will finally interpret what you can and cannot do, are very reasonable, in my opinion, as I have had direct communications with them as an appointed member of the ARRL committee on regulation by bandwidth. Now is not the time to blame groups of different opinions for what has now been decided, but to work hard and as smart as possible to convince the FCC that it is OK to use ROS on HF. As I suggested to Jose, merely changing words, or blaming it on translation, is not going to succeed, in my opinion. Rather PROOF that it is not spread spectrum (i.e. does NOT meet condition #2) will probably do it, but just saying so will not. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave Ackrill wrote: John wrote: This should easily provide any US amateur plenty of backup to be able to show good faith that he is operating within the US FCC rules. I think that you may be ignoring me John, and possibly for good reasons. However, and I do hate to be a wet blanket, but your opponents in the USA are not going to go away just because you want them to. And I talk as one who wants ROS to be legal in the USA, as well as everywhere else, so that we can all use the mode. Now that some people have it in their heads that ROS is Spread Spectrum you have an up hill task to persuade them that it isn't. You now also have a number of people who have all the ammunition to fire back if you say to the FCC that this isn't Spread Spectrum, as they've also seen the same communications on here that I have. Unfortunately, what we have now is some people who want to stop this mode of transmission in the USA who seem to have obtained a decree from a referent power that it is illegal. Unless you can get a retraction, or a decree from a higher authority, the Amateur Radio enthusiasts that wish to stop other Amateur Radio enthusiasts will just report the one lot of Radio Amateurs to the authorities in the hope that they will stop that lot of Radio Amateurs from enjoying the bands. To go back to a Stranger in a Strange Land, you will grok that some of us wish to hate the others. Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
I am for whatever will succeed, but do not underestimate how difficult it is to convincingly reverse oneself after first originally being so convincing. For myself, even from the beginning, I could not understand how the spreading was accomplished by a code that everyone else automatically had, but that was the claim, so I accepted it. Perhaps there is no spreading code independent of the data, but if so, it must now be proven thus, and not just claimed in what might be seen as an attempt to have something approved that has already been disapproved. Just because I might possess the necessary technical skills does not mean I can individually overrule the FCC with my actions. Even opposing technical experts are called by both parties in a legal argument, and the judge to decide who is correct in this case is the FCC, which has already issued an opinion, even if it may be wrong if given new information, but just saying it is so does not make it so. I believe some concrete proof is required now, and maybe your spectrum analyzer display can be part of such proof. Other's opinions may vary... 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: Skip You are over thinking this. The FCC said as they always do that you as a licensee must possess the technical skill to evaluate whether or not a particular mode meets the rules. On Jose's part a better technical description and some clarification would be very helpful to this end. I think just looking at the output on a spectrum analyzer would also be quite revealing. *From: *KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net *Reply-To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Date: *Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:03:06 -0500 *To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, I am only trying to suggest whatever ideas I can to get ROS declared to be legal. You have made such a strong case for FHSS already, that only saying you were mistaken probably will not convince the FCC. They will assume you are only changing the description so ROS appears to be legal and will demand proof that it is not FHSS to change their minds. This is only my personal, unbiased, opinion, as I would like very much for you to succeed. Essentially, you must PROVE that, spreading is NOT accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. How do you do that without disclosing the code? At this point, I doubt that the FCC will believe mere words, because there is so much pressure to allow ROS in HF in this country. Keep in mind the mess that Toyota finds itself by previously denying there is any substantial problem with unattended acceleration or braking of their cars. That may still prove to be true (i.e. not substantial), but the government here is now demanding that Toyota SHOW proof that there is no problem, and not merely saying there is not. This is currently a very hot topic with the government and Congress and on the minds of everyone. So I assume likewise that PROOF will have to be SHOWN that there is no spreading signal used in ROS. Mere words will probably not be enough, and there is probably only ONE chance to succeed, so you need to be successful the first time. If you decide to only change the description and nothing further, I sincerely hope I am wrong, and I could well be. But, that is your decision, not mine. If you need to protect your invention, then just fully document and witness it, or do whatever is necessary in your country and others, and be free to do whatever is required to win this battle. Good luck! 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: Hi, KH6. I only i am going to describe in a technicals article how run the mode. If FCC want the code they will have to buy it me, that is obvious. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:31 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, You will have to disclose the algorithm that determines the spreading on ROS (independent of the data), or bandwidth expansion, if that is actually used. You will have to convince technical people that will show your new description to our FCC that your original description was wrong and prove it by revealing your code. I think this is the only way to get the FCC opinion reversed. You now have a difficult task before you, but I wish you success, as ROS is a really fun mode. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
The distinguishing characteristic of spread spectrum is spreading by a code INDEPENDENT of the data. FM for example, creates carriers depending upon the audio frequency and amplitude. SSB creates carriers at a frequency dependent upon the tone frequency, and RTTY at a pair of set frequencirs depending upon the shift or the tones used to generate shift. In spread spectrum, as Jose has written, an independent code is used for the spreading, one of the requirements to classify it as spread spectrum. 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: I have a different take on this. There are a number of modes that uses vertebrae coding which could be mis-described as spread spectrum by some. The problem with part 97 is that it tries to be as broad as possible where technical parameters are concerned. In this case it causes things to be vague. There are many things that can be described as spread spectrum that are not by definition in part 97. FM would be one of them. Anytime information is transmitted in a wider bandwidth than necessary it could be described as spread spectrum. This would include some low noise modes. The problem is that we petitioned the FCC to loosen SS rules and the more vague those rules are made the more open to debate they are. The worst that can happen under the rules if one would be operating ROS in the phone segment would be an order to cease such operation if the comish so ordered. *From: *KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net *Reply-To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Date: *Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:53:53 -0500 *To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` I am for whatever will succeed, but do not underestimate how difficult it is to convincingly reverse oneself after first originally being so convincing. For myself, even from the beginning, I could not understand how the spreading was accomplished by a code that everyone else automatically had, but that was the claim, so I accepted it. Perhaps there is no spreading code independent of the data, but if so, it must now be proven thus, and not just claimed in what might be seen as an attempt to have something approved that has already been disapproved. Just because I might possess the necessary technical skills does not mean I can individually overrule the FCC with my actions. Even opposing technical experts are called by both parties in a legal argument, and the judge to decide who is correct in this case is the FCC, which has already issued an opinion, even if it may be wrong if given new information, but just saying it is so does not make it so. I believe some concrete proof is required now, and maybe your spectrum analyzer display can be part of such proof. Other's opinions may vary... 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: Skip You are over thinking this. The FCC said as they always do that you as a licensee must possess the technical skill to evaluate whether or not a particular mode meets the rules. On Jose's part a better technical description and some clarification would be very helpful to this end. I think just looking at the output on a spectrum analyzer would also be quite revealing. *From: *KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net *Reply-To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Date: *Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:03:06 -0500 *To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, I am only trying to suggest whatever ideas I can to get ROS declared to be legal. You have made such a strong case for FHSS already, that only saying you were mistaken probably will not convince the FCC. They will assume you are only changing the description so ROS appears to be legal and will demand proof that it is not FHSS to change their minds. This is only my personal, unbiased, opinion, as I would like very much for you to succeed. Essentially, you must PROVE that, spreading is NOT accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. How do you do that without disclosing the code? At this point, I doubt that the FCC will believe mere words, because there is so much pressure to allow ROS in HF in this country. Keep in mind the mess that Toyota finds itself by previously denying there is any substantial problem with unattended acceleration or braking of their cars. That may still prove to be true (i.e. not substantial), but the government here is now demanding that Toyota SHOW proof
Re: [digitalradio] Re: GTOR- has anyone tried this?
I think I have it figured out. 1. Put the call of the station you want to link with in the box. 2. Press the Connect button. 3. If you are answered, the other station will change your message from Now Sending to Now Receiving when he clicks Changeover. 4. When you want to transmit, type in the text box and press Enter or click Send button. When you Press Changeover, it will go out. ** Important, the person doing the transmitting is the one to hit the Changeover button. What I did to understand what to do is set up two computers and two transceivers and start by pressing Connect so I could see what was happening. The program lacks indicators to tell you the status, unfortunately. When you hit Changeover, nothing may happen for quite a while, but if you are linked, it will change from sending to receiving sooner or later. If you can coordinate by phone with another person at first, that would be helpful to understand what happens on both ends. K7MTG and I had a QSO of over an hour today on 20m and he was only running 3 watts, so the mode works quite well. ** Important, run CheckSR.exe, which you can download from here: http://www.pa-sitrep.com/checksr/CheckSR.exe. Let it run for 15 minutes and then stop it and put the input and output offsets for your soundcard into Gtor. You must calibrate your soundcard like this or it will not decode and you will not know why you cannot link. 73 - Skip KH6TY jhaynesatalumni wrote: I think I have it working, but haven't heard any signals or tried to contact anyone yet. What works is that if I punch CONNECT the transmitter gets keyed and I can hear signal bursts going out on the sidetone. And I guess I am receiving audio because I'm getting a bunch of garbage on the screen with noise input. Is there a procedure for calling CQ? Or do you have to have a definite call sign you want to connect to? I assume that's what goes in the box that by default contains GTORTOCALL
Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
It is a NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT requirement (out of three). The point is that if that is not the way the spreading is done in ROS, ROS is NOT spread spectrum. PROVE, not just claim, that it is not, and the battle is won. 73 - Skip KH6TY Rik van Riel wrote: On 02/23/2010 09:00 PM, KH6TY wrote: The distinguishing characteristic of spread spectrum is spreading by a code INDEPENDENT of the data. FM for example, creates carriers depending upon the audio frequency and amplitude. SSB creates carriers at a frequency dependent upon the tone frequency, and RTTY at a pair of set frequencirs depending upon the shift or the tones used to generate shift. In spread spectrum, as Jose has written, an independent code is used for the spreading, one of the requirements to classify it as spread spectrum. One of the requirements - not the single determining characteristic by any means. From a quick look through the fldigi source code, MFSK and Olivia appear to use a pseudo-random code as well, to provide robustness against narrow band interference. From several places in src/include/jalocha/pj_mfsk.h static const uint64_t ScramblingCode = 0xE257E6D0291574ECLL; -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] Gtor
Try calibrating the sound card. 73 - Skip KH6TY jhaynesatalumni wrote: I guess I'm hearing a Gtor QSO right now, because every now and then I get a screen message DATA: comp=Huffman, block=1 and that sort of thing. but I also get CONNECT (greek) TO (greek) and DISCONNECT (greek) FROM (greek) never have seen any intelligible text. This is on 3585.5 KHz and has been going on since about 0230Z here in NW Arkansas.
Re: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum
Max d, The distinction is simple - If the carriers or tones which create the bandwidth expansion (or spreading), are accomplished by means of a spreading signal , i.e., a separate code signal, which is independent of the data , then it is spread spectrum no matter what you would like to call it. If the tone frequencies are DEPENDENT on the data, then it is NOT spread spectrum. For example in SSB, the tone frequency at any time is equal to the tone frequency of the voice plus the suppressed carrier frequency (USB). Viewing the signal on a spectrum analyzer both with and without data input will probably reveal this, which the FCC will certainly do, now that the question of whether or not ROS is spread spectrum has been raised. Jose's original paper on ROS and FHSS defined the three requirements very clearly. 73 - Skip KH6TY max d wrote: Part 97.3 Definitions defines: SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. Title 47 Sec. 2.201 is the relevant section formally defining these symbols. It can be found on the ARRL website. For a signal to be officially considered Spread Spectrum by the FCC, it would have to meet a very specific description, or maybe I should say it should not meet the other specific definitions of emissions. After my reading of 2.201, I don't think that ROS or Chip64 could be officially defined as Spread Spectrum. And, the response from the FCC doesn't provide any FCC position or interpretation of ROS, and further says The Commission does not determine if a particular mode truly represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules. Just my thoughts, Max NN5L
Re: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum
Sorry, I meant to write, For example in SSB, the RF frequency at any time is equal to the tone frequency of the voice plus the suppressed carrier frequency (USB). I did not mean the tone frequency at any time...etc. 73 - Skip KH6TY KH6TY wrote: Max d, The distinction is simple - If the carriers or tones which create the bandwidth expansion (or spreading), are accomplished by means of a spreading signal , i.e., a separate code signal, which is independent of the data , then it is spread spectrum no matter what you would like to call it. If the tone frequencies are DEPENDENT on the data, then it is NOT spread spectrum. For example in SSB, the tone frequency at any time is equal to the tone frequency of the voice plus the suppressed carrier frequency (USB). Viewing the signal on a spectrum analyzer both with and without data input will probably reveal this, which the FCC will certainly do, now that the question of whether or not ROS is spread spectrum has been raised. Jose's original paper on ROS and FHSS defined the three requirements very clearly. 73 - Skip KH6TY max d wrote: Part 97.3 Definitions defines: SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. Title 47 Sec. 2.201 is the relevant section formally defining these symbols. It can be found on the ARRL website. For a signal to be officially considered Spread Spectrum by the FCC, it would have to meet a very specific description, or maybe I should say it should not meet the other specific definitions of emissions. After my reading of 2.201, I don't think that ROS or Chip64 could be officially defined as Spread Spectrum. And, the response from the FCC doesn't provide any FCC position or interpretation of ROS, and further says The Commission does not determine if a particular mode truly represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules. Just my thoughts, Max NN5L
Re: AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum (then Why ?)
Russell, Here is a screen shot, using DigiPan as an audio spectrum analyzer, comparing MFSK16 (bottom half) with ROS 1 baud (top half). During the top half of the ROS display, I sent data as six letter N's. http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/SPECTRUM.JPG The difference between ROS and MFSK16 at idle (i.e. no data input), is that MFSK16 has repetitive carriers in a pattern, but the ROS idle has no repetitive pattern and when data is input, the pattern still appears to be random. Note the additional carriers when I send six letter N's in MFSK16. It then returns to the repetitive pattern of an MFSK16 idle. Note that the data (i.e. N's created new carriers depending upon the data. In this case, the frequency carriers are data dependent. If ROS is just FSK144, then I expected to find a repeating pattern at idle, but I never see one, even after letting ROS idle for a long time in transmit. Maybe somebody more knowledgeable than I am can interpret this better, or perhaps make their own test. 73 - Skip KH6TY Russell Blair wrote: If ROS is Multi FSK now, than WHY and WHAT was the intent to call it (SS) Spread Spectrum?, even as the FCC inplyed that the owner (Jose Albert Nieto)called it (SS). As much as I would like to use it and knowing that the FCC will not show up at my door, but they might send me a letter and ask me why and to show cause why. How that ROS has been labeled as SS, and all the others that might have use ROS is standing back just not knowing what to do it best just to now do anything yet. Russell NC5O 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson IN GOD WE TRUST Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 *From:* jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo.es *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Thu, February 25, 2010 6:36:59 PM *Subject:* Re: AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum In fact, ROS is a Multi FSK, like many other modes. *De:* Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackstien @freenet. de *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 01:29 *Asunto:* AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum Bw lower as 3kc and fsk … like many other modes That is what i think So legal where 3kc wide/digital is legal so out of cw portion but in the digiarea Dg9bfc Sigi At a given time if you make a snapshot there is only one tone so bw at a given short time in lower as 500hz So it is narrow in a short period of time ;-) should be legal anywhere My thoughts is all modes should be legal in any band cause hamradio is experimental! *Von:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com ] *Im Auftrag von *max d *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 20:53 *An:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Betreff:* [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum Part 97.3 Definitions defines: SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. Title 47 Sec. 2.201 is the relevant section formally defining these symbols. It can be found on the ARRL website. For a signal to be officially considered Spread Spectrum by the FCC, it would have to meet a very specific description, or maybe I should say it should not meet the other specific definitions of emissions. After my reading of 2.201, I don't think that ROS or Chip64 could be officially defined as Spread Spectrum. And, the response from the FCC doesn't provide any FCC position or interpretation of ROS, and further says The Commission does not determine if a particular mode truly represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules. Just my thoughts, Max NN5L
Re: AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum (then Why ?)
Russell, Here is a screen shot of Olivia 32-1000, which is also a FSK mode. Notice the pattern at idle and in the middle, where I send six N's. There is a repetitions pattern, just like in MFSK16, but wider. http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/OLIVIA32-1000.JPG What is apparently missing from ROS is any pattern at idle, which I assume means that the frequencies are generated randomly, and independently, and not by the data as in MFSK16 or Olivia 32-1000. In other words, the data is probably applied to each tone wherever it happens to be at the time. I hope I interpret this correctly. Maybe someone else has a different interpretation. 73 - Skip KH6TY Russell Blair wrote: If ROS is Multi FSK now, than WHY and WHAT was the intent to call it (SS) Spread Spectrum?, even as the FCC inplyed that the owner (Jose Albert Nieto)called it (SS). As much as I would like to use it and knowing that the FCC will not show up at my door, but they might send me a letter and ask me why and to show cause why. How that ROS has been labeled as SS, and all the others that might have use ROS is standing back just not knowing what to do it best just to now do anything yet. Russell NC5O 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson IN GOD WE TRUST Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 *From:* jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo.es *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Thu, February 25, 2010 6:36:59 PM *Subject:* Re: AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum In fact, ROS is a Multi FSK, like many other modes. *De:* Siegfried Jackstien siegfried.jackstien @freenet. de *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 01:29 *Asunto:* AW: [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum Bw lower as 3kc and fsk … like many other modes That is what i think So legal where 3kc wide/digital is legal so out of cw portion but in the digiarea Dg9bfc Sigi At a given time if you make a snapshot there is only one tone so bw at a given short time in lower as 500hz So it is narrow in a short period of time ;-) should be legal anywhere My thoughts is all modes should be legal in any band cause hamradio is experimental! *Von:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com ] *Im Auftrag von *max d *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010 20:53 *An:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Betreff:* [digitalradio] The FCC's definition of Spread Spectrum Part 97.3 Definitions defines: SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. Title 47 Sec. 2.201 is the relevant section formally defining these symbols. It can be found on the ARRL website. For a signal to be officially considered Spread Spectrum by the FCC, it would have to meet a very specific description, or maybe I should say it should not meet the other specific definitions of emissions. After my reading of 2.201, I don't think that ROS or Chip64 could be officially defined as Spread Spectrum. And, the response from the FCC doesn't provide any FCC position or interpretation of ROS, and further says The Commission does not determine if a particular mode truly represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules. Just my thoughts, Max NN5L
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Alan, Of course, the FCC rules on SS are outdated and ROS should be allowed due to its narrow spreading range, but the road to success is not to just rename a spread spectrum modem to something else and try to fool the FCC. This is a sure way to lose the battle. The genie is already out of the bottle! Instead, just petition the FCC for a waiver, or amendment, to the regulations that are a problem, to allow FHSS as long as the spreading does not exceed 3000 Hz and the signal is capable of being monitored by third parties. Do this, and there is not a problem anymore. But, do not try to disguise the fact that FHSS is being used by calling it something else, as that undermines the credibilty of the author of the mode and will make the FCC even more determined not to it on HF/VHF. It looks to me that the tone frequencies are clearly being generated independently from the data and then the data applied to the randomly generated frequency. There is NO pattern to ROS like there is to FSK modes, even to 32 tone FSK (Olivia 32-1000) or to 64 tone FSK (MT63-2000). This is a signature of FHSS. “/If/ it walks /like a duck/, quacks /like a duck/, /looks like a duck/, it must be a /duck/”. It looks like ROS really is FHSS when you look at it on a spectrum analyzer, and the spectrum analyzer does not lie. 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: KH6TY wrote: The difference between ROS and MFSK16 at idle (i.e. no data input), is that MFSK16 has repetitive carriers in a pattern, but the ROS idle has no repetitive pattern and when data is input, the pattern still appears to be random. Note the additional carriers when I send six letter N's in MFSK16. It then returns to the repetitive pattern of an MFSK16 idle. Note that the data (i.e. N's created new carriers depending upon the data. In this case, the frequency carriers are data dependent. If ROS is just FSK144, then I expected to find a repeating pattern at idle, but I never see one, even after letting ROS idle for a long time in transmit. It's pretty common in modems to randomize the data to prevent carriers when sending all zero's or ones. Phone modems do it, I'm pretty sure P3 does, and other RF modems do. I know of another amateur RF modem that had randomized spectra by design. By this test it would have been considered spreadspectrum, but it was not, it was mfsk with a randomizer. The randomizing algorithm was provided to the FCC, and life was good. This was before SS was allowed at all, and there was not a bit of discussion that it might have been spread-spectrum. If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? All I know is, this is not the spread spectrum everyone is worried is going to ruin the bands! IE: traditional spread spectrum with bandwidth expansion of 100-1000. Have fun, Alan km4ba
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation): 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/SPECTRUM.JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS definitely is. Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is so wide. BTW, this same issue came up during the regulation by bandwidth debate when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow wideband, short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they last such a short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the same time, all together they can ruin communication for narrow modes, like PSK31. The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users of one mode be able to communicate with users of another mode in the same space so QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW used by both parties would make this possible. ROS does not work well in a crowded environment or with wideband QRM, so it must find a home relatively clear of other mode QRM. This is just another job the FCC must do in order to be sure a new mode does not create chaos. It has already been shown that leaving that up just to hams does not work, and the strongest try to take over the frequencies. upper 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/SPECTRUM.JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS definitely is. Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is so wide. BTW, this same issue came up during the regulation by bandwidth debate when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow wideband, short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they last such a short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the same time, all together they can ruin communication for narrow modes, like PSK31. The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users of one mode be able to communicate with users of another mode in the same space so QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW used by both parties would make this possible. ROS does not work well in a crowded environment or with wideband QRM, so it must find a home relatively clear of other mode QRM. This is just another job the FCC must do in order to be sure a new mode does not create chaos. It has already been shown that leaving that up just to hams does not work, and the strongest try to take over the frequencies. upper 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum?
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/SPECTRUM.JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS definitely is. Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is so wide. BTW, this same issue came up during the regulation by bandwidth debate when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow wideband, short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they last such a short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the same time, all together they can ruin communication for narrow modes, like PSK31. The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users of one mode be able to communicate with users of another mode in the same space so QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW used by both parties would make this possible. ROS does not work well in a crowded environment or with wideband QRM, so it must find a home relatively clear of other mode QRM
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Hi Warren, I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find. Olivia 32-1000: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/OLIVIA32-1000.JPG 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Jose, I have already had some experience in dealing with the FCC on mode matters and even submitted my own petition, so I am trying to use that experience with them to give you good advice on how to get ROS allowed over here. I want to use ROS myself on 2M EME also, but rith now I can only use it on 70cm EME unless the FCC will allow it on 2M, so I have a strong reason myself to see the regulations changed to allow ROS to be used. My best advice to you is that a petition to the FCC to allow ROS (with the necessary limitations they think are necessary to protect other users of the bands), stands the best chance of success. If you think this is stupid advice, then just ignore it, and hope that your approach will win, but I doubt that it will, given the fact that the FCC has already believed you in the first case and because spectral analysis shows ROS is not the same as FMFSK16 or Olivia 32-1000, both FSK modes where the data determines the frequency spread. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS definitely is. Another thing that a petition should include is a requirement that ROS only be used BELOW the phone segments and ABOVE the narrowband data segments. On 20m, that means only between 14.1 and 14.225, because ROS is so wide. BTW, this same issue came up during the regulation by bandwidth debate when the ARRL HSMM (High Speed MultiMedia) proponents wanted to allow wideband, short timespan, signals everywhere with the argument that they last such a short time on any given frequency that they do not interfere, but the fallacy to that argument is that when you get a multitude of HSMM signals on at the same time, all together they can ruin communication for narrow modes, like PSK31. The other problem is that SHARING of frequencies requires that users of one mode be able to communicate with users of another mode in the same space so QRL or QSY can be used. It was realized that only CW used by both parties would make this possible. ROS does not work well in a crowded environment or with wideband QRM, so it must find a home relatively clear of other mode QRM. This is just another job the FCC must do in order to be sure a new mode does not create chaos. It has already been shown that leaving that up just to hams does not work, and the strongest try to take over the frequencies. upper 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Jose, I am a ham radio member in good standing and have been for over 55 years. I believe I also have some degree of respect and appreciation in the ham community for my development of DigiPan, introduction of PSK63, and my speech-to-text software for the blind ham so they can use PSK31. Recently, I have been trying to use my experience in dealing with the FCC to help get you over this problem you have created, but you do not understand that, and I really do not appreciate your snide inferences as to my motives. You have made your own bed, so you can now lie in it, Jose. I will not waste any more of my time trying to help ROS be legal in the USA. Let someone else be the subject of your personal attacks. Goodbye and good luck. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: KH, are you a Ham Radio or a FCC member? If you are Ham Radio you should waste your time in help new modes would be used. Only a fool throws stones at your own roof. So, if you are not a FCC member, then we know what you are. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 15:27 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle Hi Warren, I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find. Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast. net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Warren, Patrick, F6CTE, has an excellent spectral display of almost every mode at this link: http://f1ult.free.fr/DIGIMODES/MULTIPSK/digimodesF6CTE_en.htm Those displays are just like the one I made with ROS and MFSK16, but not over such a wide bandwidth and not with data input - only idling, and without the comparison to ROS. 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent of the data, which is requirement #2 in the ROS documentation for FHSS. This definitely implies ROS is FHSS. If you really want ROS to be legal here, just support a petition to the FCC to allow it. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: If you are waste time in try demostrate ROS is a SS, i think you are not trying help. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 14:36 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. Moderated for stupidity? Now that will be a first! Good luck with trying to fool the FCC. Spectral analysis suggests ROS really is FHSS, no matter what you now try to claim. This picture does not lie: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG Too bad - ROS is a fun mode and I cannot use it in USA except on UHF. I have only tried to help find a way for US hams to use ROS. It will be an honor to be banned for my stupidity! :-) Please go ahead as you wish. 73, Skip KH6TY SK jose alberto nieto ros wrote: My friend, one thing is what i wrote, and other different is what ROS is. If recommend you waste your time in doing something by Ham Radio, instead of criticism ROS. I propose to moderator you will be banned if you continue saying stupid things in this group. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast. net *Para:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Enviado:* vie,26 febrero, 2010 13:18 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle If MFSK16 was randomized would it magically become spread-spectrum? Alan, sorry I forgot to reply to this question. The answer is yes, but only if the following three conditions are ALL met (from the ROS documentation) : 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. Standard modulation schemes as frequency modulation and pulse code modulation also spread the spectrum of an information signal, but they do not qualify as spread-spectrum systems since they do not satisfy all the conditions outlined above. Looking at the comparison between ROS and MFSK16, http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG, it is easy to see that MFSK16 is not FHSS, but ROS
Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle
Hi Warren, I do not know of any way to change bandwidth in ROS. My observations with ROS is that another ROS station on the same frequency will make ROS stop decoding the first station and start decoding the next. I don't know if it is a matter of strength, but I guess it is. The reason for this is that if the second station is weaker than the first, the first will continue decoding and I will not know there is another signal on the frequency, until one or the other fades. Any wideband signal, like Pactor, covering about the upper forth of the ROS signal also stops decoding. Olivia is much more narrow than ROS, so the chances of QRM to ROS are much greater, and harder to get away from, since ROS is so wide. Jose admits that QRM from wideband signals cannot be tolerated, but narrowband signals (like PSK31) can be, and I can understand that, but ROS is still a wideband signal, even if the tones are randomly spaced and separated a lot, and you can see what happens when one ROS signal comes on the frequency used by another ROS signal just by monitoring a popular ROS frequency. 14.101 is particularly bad for Pactor QRM, both from Pactor I, Pactor-II and Pactor-III. I don't use Olivia enough on HF to know how it handles same-frequency interference. I use Olivia daily only on UHF, where it works as well as SSB phone, or sometimes a little better, under severe Doppler flutter and QSB on 70cm DX. I am hoping that ROS will do even better. I think the 1 baud mode may be very good for real time VHF DX or EME QSO's. Unfortunately, we can only use ROS above 222, so 2m EME is not possible yet for us using ROS. I hope some day it will be. 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Hi Skip, Does ROS have any flexibility like Olivia where you can change the Bandwidth? I am thinking it must not. SS modes that we all have experience with ( Cells, WiFi, etc ) seem to work well on top of each other and seem not to interfere with each other (for the most part). I was wondering if several hams using ROS that are one top of each other, does it work better than say, Olivia? Warren - K5WGM --- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:27 AM Hi Warren, I have already captured a spectrum of Olivia 32-100 (i.e., FSK32) and posted it in a reply, but glad do it again.. You can see the fixed frequencies at idle and then the new frequencies added when data is sent (in the seared middle part). I have not combined that on one uploaded page with the ROS spectrum analysis, but you can easily compare the two yourself, using the ROS spectral analysys with MFSK16. I wanted to confirm that both MFSK16 and Olivia 32-100 had the same signature of FSK, and they do, which is far different from the signature of ROS. It is very clear that ROS is using Frequency Hopping, as the frequencies are not a function of the data, and that is a unique characteristic of frequency hopping, at least according to everything I could find. Olivia 32-1000: http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ OLIVIA32- 1000.JPG 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, can you show some more spectral comparison examples? This time add the widest Olivia mode and other very wide modes. Thanks in advance, Warren - K5WGM --- On *Fri, 2/26/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast. net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS carrier pattern when idle To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:11 AM Jose, my attempted help is to let you understand that the FCC believed you when you said ROS is FHSS, so you will fail in any attempt to reclassify ROS as just FKS144. The FCC will not believe you. What will probably succeed is for you to continue to describe ROS as FHSS and let the FCC permit it in the USA as long as it can be monitored, the bandwidth does not exceed the wide of a SSB phone signal, and it is not used in either the phone bands (data is illegal there anyway) or in the band segments where narrow modes, such as PSK31 are used because it is as wide as the entire PSK31 activity area. Look at the spectral comparison http://home. comcast.net/ ~hteller/ SPECTRUM. JPG. In the middle, I am sending data by MFSK16 (the letters N), and you can see that the frequencies are being determined by the data, which means it is not FHSS. But, in the middle of the ROS spectral display, I am doing the same thing, and there is no change to the frequencies being transmitted, obviously because the frequencies are independent
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS carrier pattern when idle
Mike, I have uploaded the comparison you requested for ROS (16 baud this time for better comparison overall) compared to CHIP64, both idling: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/ROS16vsChip64.jpg It is hard to see what happens when you send data in CHIP64 as the signal looks a lot like noise, but you can definitely ascertain a fixed pattern in the noise at idle. I can't spot any repetitive pattern in ROS, even at 16 baud. Perhaps you can. When you send data, it is hard to see any change in CHIP64. From the image, it looks like the spreading in CHIP64 is by a fixed pattern, and perhaps the data modulates the fixed carriers. Anyway, I have not seen the technical description, so I don't know. I'll leave it to you to more accurately interpret the images. I had to use MultiPSK instead of DigiPan this time to get better detail regarding amplitude with corresponding colors. 73 - Skip KH6TY silversmj wrote: Hey Skip KH6TY, Could you show us a pic of Chip64 (your choice to compare it to ROS)? Have a look at the links on my message 34845: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/34845 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/34845 The author of Chip64 uses DSSS but in a much narrow BW than ROS. How it works is very nicely disclosed. Since your currently closer (according to QRZ) to the ARRL VA Section NTS than I, perhaps you could listen for the Virginia Digital Net (VDN) 1915 Eastern M-F 3578.5 kHz who advertises/promotes using Chip64. I appreciate all that you and the author of ROS have done for amateur radio. Kind 73 de Mike KB6WFC
Re: [digitalradio] There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
That's a good analysis, Steinar. Is it possible to see if the pattern changes when sending data? That is all the FCC is concerned about. The pattern has to change when sending data and not just remain the same to exclude it from being FHSS. 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: [Attachment(s) #TopText from Steinar Aanesland included below] Hi Skip I have been monitoring a ROS idling over time using DL4YHF's Spectrum Lab. Here is the results.You can clearly see a pattern 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 26.02.2010 12:29, KH6TY wrote: Alan, Of course, the FCC rules on SS are outdated and ROS should be allowed due to its narrow spreading range, but the road to success is not to just rename a spread spectrum modem to something else and try to fool the FCC. This is a sure way to lose the battle. The genie is already out of the bottle! Instead, just petition the FCC for a waiver, or amendment, to the regulations that are a problem, to allow FHSS as long as the spreading does not exceed 3000 Hz and the signal is capable of being monitored by third parties. Do this, and there is not a problem anymore. But, do not try to disguise the fact that FHSS is being used by calling it something else, as that undermines the credibilty of the author of the mode and will make the FCC even more determined not to it on HF/VHF. It looks to me that the tone frequencies are clearly being generated independently from the data and then the data applied to the randomly generated frequency. There is NO pattern to ROS like there is to FSK modes, even to 32 tone FSK (Olivia 32-1000) or to 64 tone FSK (MT63-2000). This is a signature of FHSS. “/If/ it walks /like a duck/, quacks /like a duck/, /looks like a duck/, it must be a /duck/”. It looks like ROS really is FHSS when you look at it on a spectrum analyzer, and the spectrum analyzer does not lie. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
Thanks for the clarification, Rein. That agrees with what Steinar sees, and with the Wikipedia discussion, which says in part, Most pseudorandom generator algorithms produce sequences which are uniformly distributed /wiki/Uniform_distribution_%28discrete%29 by any of several tests. It is an open question, and one central to the theory and practice of cryptography /wiki/Cryptography, whether there is any way to distinguish the output of a high-quality PRNG from a truly random sequence without knowing the algorithm(s) used and the state with which it was initialized. The differentiating factor in FHSS is apparently whether or not the data is superimposed on the carriers, or if the carrier frequencies are determined by the data. I cannot see that happing in ROS, and I can in all the FSK modes, but maybe I just do not know how to find it for sure. I guess the FCC engineers will probably figure out if ROS is actually spread spectrum as originally claimed, or FSK with FEC as now claimed. It is just hard to imagine that someone as intelligent and capable as Jose could make such a huge mistake after writing seven pages of text and diagrams describing the mode the first time! No wonder the FCC believed him! Will they now believe him, or will they believe that the so-called technical description now on the ROS website is just an attempt to get ROS considered legal on HF? Probably they will believe only their own tests now, so we will have to wait for those. The FCC does not care about the mode, or what it is called, but only what is transmitted on the air. 73 - Skip KH6TY pa0r wrote: SS uses pseudorandom codes to wag the carrier(s). EVERY pseudorandom code is repetitive, the length may vary. 73, Rein PA0R --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: That's a good analysis, Steinar. Is it possible to see if the pattern changes when sending data? That is all the FCC is concerned about. The pattern has to change when sending data and not just remain the same to exclude it from being FHSS. 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: [Attachment(s) #TopText from Steinar Aanesland included below] Hi Skip I have been monitoring a ROS idling over time using DL4YHF's Spectrum Lab. Here is the results.You can clearly see a pattern 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 26.02.2010 12:29, KH6TY wrote: Alan, Of course, the FCC rules on SS are outdated and ROS should be allowed due to its narrow spreading range, but the road to success is not to just rename a spread spectrum modem to something else and try to fool the FCC. This is a sure way to lose the battle. The genie is already out of the bottle! Instead, just petition the FCC for a waiver, or amendment, to the regulations that are a problem, to allow FHSS as long as the spreading does not exceed 3000 Hz and the signal is capable of being monitored by third parties. Do this, and there is not a problem anymore. But, do not try to disguise the fact that FHSS is being used by calling it something else, as that undermines the credibilty of the author of the mode and will make the FCC even more determined not to it on HF/VHF. It looks to me that the tone frequencies are clearly being generated independently from the data and then the data applied to the randomly generated frequency. There is NO pattern to ROS like there is to FSK modes, even to 32 tone FSK (Olivia 32-1000) or to 64 tone FSK (MT63-2000). This is a signature of FHSS. âEURoe/If/ it walks /like a duck/, quacks /like a duck/, /looks like a duck/, it must be a /duck/âEUR?. It looks like ROS really is FHSS when you look at it on a spectrum analyzer, and the spectrum analyzer does not lie. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
Looks like good news Steinar! If the data changes the frequencies, it does not qualify as FHSS as Jose originally claimed. I am sure the FCC will find the same during their tests and expect them to say it can be used on HF and VHF. I am especially interested in being able to use the 1 baud mode for EME on 2m and right now, FHSS is not permitted below 222 MHz. However, we will have to wait for the FCC to issue a new opinion, since they already issued one based on Jose's original claims. 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Skip Here is the new ROS signal. It is idling with two gruops of 25 sec of X's . As you can see the pattern change when sending data. http://home.broadpark.no/~saanes/bilder/ROS_X_2.JPG http://home.broadpark.no/%7Esaanes/bilder/ROS_X_2.JPG 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 27.02.2010 13:19, KH6TY wrote: That's a good analysis, Steinar. Is it possible to see if the pattern changes when sending data? That is all the FCC is concerned about. The pattern has to change when sending data and not just remain the same to exclude it from being FHSS. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling
Self-regulating means that we police ourselves and obey the rules on the honor system. It also might mean the Official Observers assist in regulations. Regulating means following rules, not interpreting them for our own benefit, but as accurately as possible. If you were the FCC and had received a seven page document describing ROS as FHSS, and then later received a two page technical description that was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, but that ROS had not changed, would you believe the first document or the second, knowing that the mode may really be FHSS butis now called something else in order to achieve legal status? Under these circumstances, I DO think they will put enough effort into this to find the TRUTH. It is clear that they can no longer just believe the author, since his story has done a 180 degree shift, so I would think they feel they are now obligated to make tests to determine if the mode really is FHSS or FSK144, or something else, since they no longer can trust what the author says. The change is so enormous that it is not just a matter of having left something out the first time. My guess is the FCC will, but from the spectral analysis Steiner has made, there is probably no problem. It is just that the author, who claims he is the dependable source, simply cannot be trusted 100% to tell the truth, and has already reversed himself once. Tough situation. :-( 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: Skip Do you really think the FCC will put that much effort into this? They really want amateur radio to be self regulating. I think that people who bother the comish with such trivia degrades the hobby. When the administration of our activities become too burdensome, the FCC will be less inclined to support it. I can not see them using valuable engineering time on this. What the FCC stated was that based on the documentation, the developer claimed it was SS but it was up to the individual amateur to make the determination. They made no ruling or determination, just a carefully worded opinion of a staff member. Part of holding a license is being able to determine which operation is legal. The same thing came up over digital repeaters a few years ago. An FCC staff member told an interested group at Dayton that if they were qualified to hold their license, they should have the ability to read and interpret the rules and figure it out for themselves. *From: *KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net *Reply-To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Date: *Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:58:58 -0500 *To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling Thanks for the clarification, Rein. That agrees with what Steinar sees, and with the Wikipedia discussion, which says in part, Most pseudorandom generator algorithms produce sequences which are uniformly distributed /wiki/Uniform_distribution_%28discrete%29 by any of several tests. It is an open question, and one central to the theory and practice of cryptography /wiki/Cryptography , whether there is any way to distinguish the output of a high-quality PRNG from a truly random sequence without knowing the algorithm(s) used and the state with which it was initialized. The differentiating factor in FHSS is apparently whether or not the data is superimposed on the carriers, or if the carrier frequencies are determined by the data. I cannot see that happing in ROS, and I can in all the FSK modes, but maybe I just do not know how to find it for sure. I guess the FCC engineers will probably figure out if ROS is actually spread spectrum as originally claimed, or FSK with FEC as now claimed. It is just hard to imagine that someone as intelligent and capable as Jose could make such a huge mistake after writing seven pages of text and diagrams describing the mode the first time! No wonder the FCC believed him! Will they now believe him, or will they believe that the so-called technical description now on the ROS website is just an attempt to get ROS considered legal on HF? Probably they will believe only their own tests now, so we will have to wait for those. The FCC does not care about the mode, or what it is called, but only what is transmitted on the air. 73 - Skip KH6TY pa0r wrote: SS uses pseudorandom codes to wag the carrier(s). EVERY pseudorandom code is repetitive, the length may vary. 73, Rein PA0R --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , KH6TY kh...@... mailto:kh...@... mailto:kh...@... wrote: That's a good analysis, Steinar. Is it possible to see if the pattern changes when sending data? That is all the FCC
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
Steinar, that is absolutely true, the spectrum belongs to everybody, but the other side of the coin is that we need to police ourselves, and that usually means moving around to better accomodate other users of the spectrum, or by their moving also. This is how we arrive at bandplan divisions of the legal spectrum allocations. I have been monitoring ROS all day, and in this country, Olivia stations cause as much trouble to ROS as ROS causes to Olivia. It all depends upon the relative signal strengths as to which one decodes. I see many ROS QSO's stopped by Olivia 32-1000 traffic on 14106. Since the 1 baud mode is slow and probably going to be most useful on VHF and UHF for weak signal DX or EME where S/N is a much greater problem than it is on HF, it might be better to suggest moving the recommended ROS 16 baud 20m frequency to 14109 to avoid collisions with Olivia, and avoid Olivia interference with ROS, and mainly use the 1 baud mode for VHF/UHF weak signal work where it is needed the most. Right now, an automatic Pactor station is also disrupting ROS on 14106. Just my personal opinion... 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Jose I support you completely 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 01.03.2010 18:34, nietorosdj wrote: Hi, From 14101 to 14112 is the range legal in the IARU Regions for DIGIMODES until 2700Hz. You cannot use all the spectrum exclusive for you because spectrum is for all hamradio. OLIVIA and ROS have to share frequencies, as well as future modes that will emerge over the coming years. About that Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions,I think you're quite wrong. Best regards, Jose Alberto From: m...@pp.inet.fi mailto:masa%40pp.inet.fi To: nieto...@hotmail.com mailto:nietoros%40hotmail.com Subject: ROS Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:47:27 +0200 Hi Jose, since today I have observed the signals of your mode on 14.106.0 Mhz. Since 5 years we are using the frequencies 14.108,50, 14.107,50 14.105,50 for Olivia after we have been on different frequencies below 14.100 where other modes have been active. The channels for Olivia are 1000 Hz or 500 Hz wide. Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions. We have daily contacts between EU and the USA on 14.106,50 MHz. For Olivia, channels are used not to disturb each other when you cannot hear signals in the noise. - When a ROS signal appears on the channels it will qrm 3 Olivia channels of 1000 Hz or 5 channels of 500 Hz width. I see a very big problem when we will have collisions between Olivia - which is up to now only disturbed by automatic stations - and ROS mode. From own experiences I know that Olivia, when a pactor signal appears which is stronger by some s-stages, will copy errorfree. In contrary I observed yesterday that a pactor signal of abt the same strength as ROS made ROS transmissions unreadable. You propose also a higher frequency to be used for ROS. This is a good idea as above 14110 MHz here in OH I see only then and when some russian ssb stations, nothing else. To have fun with both modes, I strongly recommend to use NO frequencies below 14.110 MHz for ROS. This will avoid any aggression and any fighting between ROS and Olivia users. I hope you will understand our problems, Best regards, M.Salzwedel, oh/dk4zc
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
I agree that is easier. The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 1 baud exclusive, so that is not suggested as available to go to. Even though is an advantage to being about to work at -35 dB S/N, the advantage is much greater at VHF and UHF, where atmospheric noise is a greater problem than on HF. So, if 14109 is not suggested as exclusive to 1 baud, there will be more space for HF users of ROS to go to avoid QRM or ROS interference - practically, on 20m, twice as much space. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: I think this is a lot easier. If you see a channel is occupied by Olivia, go to another channel. And if you see that a channel is occuped by ROS and want to transmit with OLIVIA, do the same. What i cannot say is The 20-meters band is only mine. *De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net *Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Enviado:* lun,1 marzo, 2010 23:02 *Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users Steinar, that is absolutely true, the spectrum belongs to everybody, but the other side of the coin is that we need to police ourselves, and that usually means moving around to better accomodate other users of the spectrum, or by their moving also. This is how we arrive at bandplan divisions of the legal spectrum allocations. I have been monitoring ROS all day, and in this country, Olivia stations cause as much trouble to ROS as ROS causes to Olivia. It all depends upon the relative signal strengths as to which one decodes. I see many ROS QSO's stopped by Olivia 32-1000 traffic on 14106. Since the 1 baud mode is slow and probably going to be most useful on VHF and UHF for weak signal DX or EME where S/N is a much greater problem than it is on HF, it might be better to suggest moving the recommended ROS 16 baud 20m frequency to 14109 to avoid collisions with Olivia, and avoid Olivia interference with ROS, and mainly use the 1 baud mode for VHF/UHF weak signal work where it is needed the most. Right now, an automatic Pactor station is also disrupting ROS on 14106. Just my personal opinion... 73 - Skip KH6TY Steinar Aanesland wrote: Hi Jose I support you completely 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 01.03.2010 18:34, nietorosdj wrote: Hi, From 14101 to 14112 is the range legal in the IARU Regions for DIGIMODES until 2700Hz. You cannot use all the spectrum exclusive for you because spectrum is for all hamradio. OLIVIA and ROS have to share frequencies, as well as future modes that will emerge over the coming years. About that Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions,I think you're quite wrong. Best regards, Jose Alberto From: m...@pp.inet. fi mailto:masa%40pp.inet.fi To: nieto...@hotmail. com mailto:nietoros%40hotmail.com Subject: ROS Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:47:27 +0200 Hi Jose, since today I have observed the signals of your mode on 14.106.0 Mhz. Since 5 years we are using the frequencies 14.108,50, 14.107,50 14.105,50... . for Olivia after we have been on different frequencies below 14.100 where other modes have been active. The channels for Olivia are 1000 Hz or 500 Hz wide. Olivia is the only mode that allows errorfree signal transfer at worse conditions. We have daily contacts between EU and the USA on 14.106,50 MHz. For Olivia, channels are used not to disturb each other when you cannot hear signals in the noise. - When a ROS signal appears on the channels it will qrm 3 Olivia channels of 1000 Hz or 5 channels of 500 Hz width. I see a very big problem when we will have collisions between Olivia - which is up to now only disturbed by automatic stations - and ROS mode. From own experiences I know that Olivia, when a pactor signal appears which is stronger by some s-stages, will copy errorfree. In contrary I observed yesterday that a pactor signal of abt the same strength as ROS made ROS transmissions unreadable. You propose also a higher frequency to be used for ROS. This is a good idea as above 14110 MHz here in OH I see only then and when some russian ssb stations, nothing else. To have fun with both modes, I strongly recommend to use NO frequencies below 14.110 MHz for ROS. This will avoid any aggression and any fighting between ROS and Olivia users. I hope you will understand our problems, Best regards, M.Salzwedel, oh/dk4zc
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
Sorry Dave, I don't follow you as to what would be stupid. The point is that any suggested frequency exclusive to 1 baud suggests to 16 baud users to stay off. However, there are many more 16 baud users than 1 baud if you monitor both frequencies, and QSO's move much faster, allowing for more users to use the space. Suggesting 1 baud primarily for VHF/UHF, where it is more effective, would provide more suggested space for 16 baud users on HF and relieve congestion. 20m is only one example, of course, and the same principle could be applied to other bands. Perhaps I misunderstood you. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave Ackrill wrote: KH6TY wrote: I agree that is easier. The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 1 baud exclusive, so that is not suggested as available to go to. Even though is an advantage to being about to work at -35 dB S/N, the advantage is much greater at VHF and UHF, where atmospheric noise is a greater problem than on HF. So, if 14109 is not suggested as exclusive to 1 baud, there will be more space for HF users of ROS to go to avoid QRM or ROS interference - practically, on 20m, twice as much space. Exclusive only on 20M, not *all bands*, that would be stupid... Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
Technically, that is true. However, the problem I see over here is many times ROS decoding is stopped because of interference by other modes (Olivia and Pactor both), and not so many times as ROS interfering to other modes. Yes, that has been complained about also, and I have sometimes also seen ROS 16 stopping Olivia 32-1000 decoding. Perhaps others will offer an opinion. 73 - Skip KH6TY jose alberto nieto ros wrote: KH, ROS 1 baud, is just the less interference produces to others modes. Before quit 1 baud, i would quit 16 bauds. So, has no sense what you proposse.
Re: [digitalradio] Spectrum is for ALL users
From the latest at rosmodem.wordpress.com: * **14.102 (exclusive 16 baud)** * 14.106 (exclusive 16 baud) * 14.109 (exclusive 1 baud) 73 - Skip KH6TY John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 05:40 PM 3/1/2010, you wrote: The problem is that 14109 has been designated as 1 baud exclusive, It has?
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
I really don't think there any ROS haters. ROS is a mode that is fun to use and works well. There may be some who complain that it interferes with the NCDXF beacon network, but the suggested frequency was then moved upward, in the true spirit of cooperation. However, there is a misconception about those whose motives are only to obey the regulations they MUST live under, and the understandable need to clarify what is legal or not, so they do not risk penalties or citations for illegal operation. The problem was created by the author himself by first posting a seven page document purportedly claiming it was FHSS (and in no uncertain terms!), and then totally revising the description to say it is actually FSK144 (at the suggestion of someone who said that would make it legal somehow). It was the author that first characterized that anyone who is not with me is against me and that anyone even questioning the legality of ROS should be banned ( such as myself) or punished ( locked out of using the mode by being singled out and included in a non grata list). I do feel sympathy for Jose, and appreciation for his very fine work, but it was HIS mistake in the beginning and continuing to make more mistakes that made it even worse that has led to the current situation. He is not being banned by Andy, only not actively promoted, which I think is a totally appropriate and diplomatic response to the banning of others. Especially in an open forum and world of amateur radio, banning or punishing anyone for their stated opinions is simply unacceptable. An apology from Jose might result in forgiveness from those harmed and we could then can get on with the job of either using the mode, or being sure we use it in accordance with our own administrations, or petition for use under whatever limitations are necessary to accomodate other users of the same bands in a cooperative manner. 73 - Skip KH6TY pd4u_dares wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Toby Burnett ruff...@... .. But to be honest I don'' t think I shall bother too now as there seems much to much grief happening from this. Like I say, it seemed a fair experimental mode but it is wider than .. It'd be nice to see something other than ROS comments on the digi reflector group. For a change. Yeah let's stop our support for ROS on this group as well as on K3UK's sked page... Let us created two camps: the ROS haters and the ROS lovers...the good guys and the bad guys, and all in the name of the ham radio spirit of course!! :-O Marc, PD4U
Re: [digitalradio] ROS operating frequencies on 20m
Julian, In the US, the RTTY/data segment of 20m stops at 14.150. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: Can anything be done to get the recommended frequencies for ROS on 20m shifted out of the 14.101 - 14.109 range that already has established users of other modes? On my band plan, 14.101 and up is designated for All modes which goes right the way up to 14.350 so there is no reason for digital modes to pile on top of each other. It makes no sense whatever for two modes that can both be used to make weak signal contacts - ROS and Olivia - to use the same frequencies, when neither users can copy the others' transmissions, possibly not even see the other mode activity on the waterfall if it is weak, and certainly not call QRL? in a way that could be understood by the other mode user. Julian, G4ILO G4ILO's Blog: http://blog.g4ilo.com http://blog.g4ilo.com
[digitalradio] ROS update
Unfortunately, it appears that ROS is actually FHSS, as originally described on the ROS website, and therefore is not legal for US hams below 222MHz. :-( From the ARRL website, http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11377/?nc=1, When queried about this new statement, the FCC's Consumer Assistance Office stated that [T]he information contained on the ROS Web site was /not/ provided by the FCC. They then reaffirmed the original statements that originated from the FCC's Wireless Bureau, which handles Amateur Radio rules for the US. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11377/?nc=1 Hope to see you on ROS on UHF, 432.090 MHz, every morning between 7:30 AM and 8:00 AM. 73, Skip KH6TY FM02BT
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS operating frequencies on 20m
Julian, the problem is that the FCC regulations we live under are often more strict than the IARU bandplans. Under those regulations, RTTY/Data stops at 14.150. Furthermore, the IARU band plans are only recommendations for member organizations. The FCC regulations are laws we MUST follow. While this may seem unfair in some cases (often to everyone!) it is actually the FCC restriction on unattended operations to certain band segments that have kept the unattended stations from covering all the HF bands with Pactor-II and Pactor-III, which they would dearly like to do, so they would never have interference from one of their own kind. All modes, with no other legally-enforceable restrictions, would be a disaster for all our HF activities. The problem with recommendations is that they are only suggestions, so there are those who do not agree with the recommendations and just do what and where they wish. US amateurs, since they are governed instead by laws, face license revocation or fines if they consistently flaunt the laws. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: I thought you were in Region 2. I have the Region 2 band plan in front of me right off the IARU site and it definitely says All Modes in all of the sections right up to 14.350. I don't see any division at 14.150 at all. In any case, I don't think you'd need to go as far even as 14.150 to find a frequency that hasn't been designated for use by some other modes. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Julian, In the US, the RTTY/data segment of 20m stops at 14.150.
Re: [digitalradio] FCC on ROS post on ARRL website!
If anyone doubts that ROS is actually spread spectrum, download, unzip and compare screen captures of both ROS and FMSK64, idling, and when data (a string of periods) is sent. It is easy to see that the frequencies of the ROS carriers are not determined by the data, but that the data is modulating each carrier where it has been place by an independent code. http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/compare.zip. According to Jose, one of the characteristics of FHSS is, 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. Independent of the data is the operative term here, and the spectrum analysis pictures clearly indicate that is so. After seeing this, as the FCC engineers at the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (without relying on the agent) obviously could see with their own spectrum analysis also saw, there is no doubt the ROS is NOT 144FSK, but some form of spread spectrum, which is currently illegal for US amateurs to use below 222 Mhz. However, the story does not have to end here - a petition to the FCC to allow spread spectrum, if the spreading will not exceed the width of a phone signal, together with any other necessary limitations, can be submitted and the FCC decision possibly amended. That is how it MUST be done here, and the ONLY WAY it is done. The FCC receives many such petitions all the time, so anyone interested in being able to use ROS on HF in this country only has to put together such a petition. I believe the FCC website has instructions for submitting petitions, and Googling around will show many examples to follow. 73 - Skip KH6TY Rik van Riel wrote: On 03/04/2010 02:02 PM, Alan wrote: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11377/?nc=1 http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11377/?nc=1 So we can forget about here in the US...too bad it looked really nice...73, Alan I don't read it like that. The FCC just says that: 1) spread spectrum is not allowed on HF, and 2) The Commission does not determine if a particular mode 'truly' represents spread spectrum, and 3) The licensee of the station transmitting the emission is responsible for determining that the operation of the station complies with the rules. Once Jose publishes a full specification for ROS (one that is complete enough to create an interoperable alternative implementation), US hams will be able to make the technical determination that the FCC requires us to make. Until then, there is no way to be sure whether or not ROS is legal to use in the US. We simply do not have enough info to make the determination. I expect that cautious US hams will avoid ROS until there is certainty that ROS is in fact legal. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] NEW NARROWBAND DIGITAL MODE
Andy, I now cannot see the previously seen randomness in the new 500 Hz-wide mode of ROS, so it does not appear to be spread spectrum. In addition, the addition of data now alters the idling carrier frequencies according to the data, because if it did not, it would still fit one of the requirements for spread spectrum. The randomness does still appear in the 2250 Hz-wide mode, either in HF or EME mode, and is not influenced by the sending of data, however, suggesting that mode has not been changed. I would say that the 500 Hz-wide ROS mode is probably legal for US amateurs to use, but the 2250 Hz-wide mode would still only be legal to use over 222 Mhz. Perhaps Steinar can use his superior spectrum analysis software to confirm this. 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: *ROS v2.5.0 Beta* no-re...@wordpress.com mailto:no-re...@wordpress.com Date: Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:42 PM Subject: [New post] NEW NARROWBAND DIGITAL MODE To: k3uka...@gmail.com mailto:k3uka...@gmail.com http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/author/rosmodem/ NEW NARROWBAND DIGITAL MODE http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/new-narrowband-digital-mode/ *José Alberto Nieto Ros http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/author/rosmodem/* | 5 March, 2010 at 03:42 | Categories: Uncategorized http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/ | URL: http://wp.me/pNifC-5R http://wp.me/pNifC-5R I have created a new narrowband digital mode for Ham Radio operators Technical description will be sent to FCC with the aim that they give their approval for this new mode. Add a comment to this post http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/new-narrowband-digital-mode/#respond
Re: [digitalradio] Dominoex revisited
It is in use every Wednesday and Sunday on FM using DominoEX 8. Works great with weak signals and multipath! I think Olivia 16-500 stands up a little better on HF, especially with atmospheric disturbances, but DominoEx 4 is better for FM SSB weak signal work. It is disturbed too much by Doppler effects to use on SSB weak signal. 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: It has been a few years since Dominoex was added to our tool box. I still see it on the air from time to time but not on a daily basis. I wonder why it is not used ? http://www.southgatearc.org/news/december2005/domino_ex.htm http://www.southgatearc.org/news/december2005/domino_ex.htm
Re: [digitalradio] Re:Olivia trivia
I believe that Pawel named the Olivia mode in honor of his daughter. 73 - Skip KH6TY obrienaj wrote: I hope the question is actually who IS rather than who WAS Olivia. Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Paul W. Ross deadgo...@... wrote: The trivia question for today WHO was Olivia?? /paul W3FIS
Re: [digitalradio] ROS controversy
Good riddance! 73 - Skip KH6TY John wrote: Andy, since you have chosen to moderate very specific posts to slant the discussion in favor of your own agenda, and that of several prominent other frequent posters, this reflector has become effectively useless to me. It is unfortunate that it comes to this. I know you do not care who you lose and that is quite alright. Certain members of your group have a specific agenda and it is not necessarily in the best interest of ham radio. The word characterization has been used recently by at least on of them. Yet this same individual seems to have no problem whatsoever using mis-characterizations himself to further his own agenda. This entire drama was primarily generated by Skip, and his own desire to be the authority, yet he consistently ignores certain facts that have been brought up by numerous other posters, including myself. You do not need to concern yourself with moderating my posts any further to protect your agenda. I am outta here 73 John KE5HAM
Re: [digitalradio] ROS controversy
Are you on a witch hunt, John? I did nothing but analyze ROS with FSK and present the findings to this group. On the basis of the ROS emissions, all other facts brought up here that you allude to are irrelevant. The signature of the ROS mode clearly fits the definition of Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum as originally documented by the author and easily found in literature or the Wikipedia. A technical description can always be rewritten to suit an agenda, as we can see, but the truth lies only in what is transmitted and how it is transmitted. That is all the FCC cares about, and we as hams are held responsible for emissions that comply with the FCC regulations, whether or not we like them. The authority is not myself, but the FCC regulations as they currently stand. If you don't like them, then petition to have them changed instead of trying to blame me instead of the author, who correctly described ROS as FHSS at the outset, which mode's emission signature clearly shows is true: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/compare.zip 73 - Skip KH6TY John wrote: Andy, since you have chosen to moderate very specific posts to slant the discussion in favor of your own agenda, and that of several prominent other frequent posters, this reflector has become effectively useless to me. It is unfortunate that it comes to this. I know you do not care who you lose and that is quite alright. Certain members of your group have a specific agenda and it is not necessarily in the best interest of ham radio. The word characterization has been used recently by at least on of them. Yet this same individual seems to have no problem whatsoever using mis-characterizations himself to further his own agenda. This entire drama was primarily generated by Skip, and his own desire to be the authority, yet he consistently ignores certain facts that have been brought up by numerous other posters, including myself. You do not need to concern yourself with moderating my posts any further to protect your agenda. I am outta here 73 John KE5HAM
Re: [digitalradio] A question about spread spectrum
It is still valid, Ted, and is described such in the Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency-hopping_spread_spectrum. I think the FCC rules are definitely out of date, but identification is essential to being about to share frequencies, so any code that prevents that has no place on the ham bands. ROS is not like that, though, since the synchronization is apparently contained in the reception code, so anybody can copy. The FCC rules need to be amended, but that needs to be done by petition. Until that is done, we are required to follow the current rules whether we agree with them or not. The other possible problem is wide-spreading spread spectrum. There was a failed attempt about 5 years ago by the ARRL HSMM (High Speed Multi-Media) proponents to allow spread spectrum on the HF bands with the argument that the signal is spread so widely, each carrier appears at any given frequency only a short time, so it would not significantly interfere with other users of the frequency, and could, for example, be allowed to cover the entire 20m band. However, that assumes only one FHSS signal at a time. I think if you put on many at one time, in the resulting aggregate, there could be continuous interference over the entire width of the spectrum spread, since the spreading is pseudorandom. You can see what happens when just more than one ROS user tries to use the same frequency. They interfere with each other. A /million monkeys/ with typewriters will eventually write a Shakespeare play. 73 - Skip KH6TY theophilusofgenoa wrote: I had the idea that a reason spread spectrum was not legal was that the use of a psuedo-random spreading sequence lent itself to the development of an unbreakable code (or at least a difficult to break code) that would allow secret communications by people inimical to the good old USA. And I think that is a valid point. Ted Stone, WA2WQN
Re: [digitalradio] What is SS? Senor Ros is not an honest person !
Thanks for the caution, Arnie. I will definitely scan my computer for viruses and trojans after installing running loading ROS. The fact that it already sends automatic emails makes one imagine what else might be possible once I have configured it with my email address! 73 - Skip KH6TY Arnaldo Coro wrote: Dear amigos: I am really concerned about the damage to the amateur radio hobby generated by a NON AMATEUR in Spain that wrote a software program for a new digital mode that very clearly to me, without any doubts , is a FHSS communications mode. I wrote e-mail messages to this person, and received some very aggressive replies from him... he even used several bad words in his messages that show that besides his very primitive knowledge of the English language _ ( he can not communicate effectively using English, as he has demonstrated many times with this very poorly written postings ) he lacks the most basic education and ethics. The topic we are dealing now is not, in my humble opinion, if ROS is or is not FHSS, it this person sent messages explaining or attempting to explain the nature of the ROS software, and then when faced with clear evidence that part of the market , and a signficant one indeed , to which he was aiming, could not make use of the ROS software. Now we are seeing on the 20 meters band, under better propagation conditions due to the so far sustained increase in solar activity, that Olivia users are facing interference from ROS users, caused by the ignorance of the Spanish inventor about amateur radio. He replied to a senior Cuban professor, a very prestigious telecommunications expert, using what could be described as foul language, an indication that confirmed that he was not only answering to my advice in such a disrespectful language. Just to add one more element... when I asked him about the possibility of writing the ROS software for LINUX users, his answer was also a clear demonstration of his ignorance about today's world. So, amigos at digital radio , my advise , and that's what I am going to do, is to alert ROS users of the possibility that the author of the software may even be attempting to use it for other purposes that are not related to amateur radio... After all, once you load a program of which you don't known the source code, into your computer, you are at the mercy of those who wrote the computer code... 73 and DX Arnie Coro CO2KK IARU Region II Area C Emergency Coordinator --- On *Sat, 3/6/10, John B. Stephensen /kd6...@comcast.net/* wrote: From: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] What is SS? To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, March 6, 2010, 4:00 AM The document that the author of ROS originally published, Introduction to ROS: The Spread Spectrum, contains a good description of frequency-hopping spread-spectrum (FHSS) techniques. Section 4 describes taking a 250 Hz wide mode (MFSK16) and spreading it over 2 kHz by shifting the center frequency in a pseuorandom sequence. The receiver changes frequencies in the same sequence and the logic used to detect a special tone sequence to obtain synchronization is described in section 5. The amount of spectrum occupied increases by a factor of 8. FHSS is one way to minimize the effects of multipath spread but there are also other techniques that occupy less spectrum. Note that the author of ROS published a second doucument,ROS Technical Description , that contains elements of the original but does not mention FHSS and omits any description of how data is mapped to tones. Users comparing the original and later versions of the code haven't seen a difference in the transmitted spectrum. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - *From:* Rein A /mc/compose?to=rein...@ix.netcom.com *To:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com /mc/compose?to=digitalra...@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Friday, March 05, 2010 19:16 UTC *Subject:* [digitalradio] What is SS? Here is a reprint that for my limited mental capacities defines the core quite well. I have asked Mike the author for some references, no lack of trust though. - - - - - -Original Message- From: n4qlb n4...@... Sent: Mar 5, 2010 1:15 PM To: ROSDIGITALMODEMGROU p...@yahoogroups. com /mc/compose?to=ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [ROSDIGITALMODEMGRO UP] Re: How do you like ROS Now? Thank You for your comments Sig. Let me explain what SS is. Spread spectrum is a method by which a bank of channels (Frequencies) are designated between a Transmitter and Receiver and are shared or (Frequency Hopped) to facilitate
Re: [digitalradio] A question about spread spectrum
Thanks, John. I stand corrected. It has been quite a few years since that time and my recollection was that the argument was that the signal lasted such a short time on any one frequency that it would not create significant QRM, but that also may have been a misunderstanding on my part, or simply not what was proposed. 73 - Skip KH6TY John B. Stephensen wrote: The HSMM working group never proposed the use of spread spectrum. It was interested in getting the maximum data rate into limited bandwidths. SS does the opposite of what the HSMM WG was interested in. It spreads limited amounts of data over the maximum bandwidth. The actual proposal was to create small segments in the 80, 40, 20 and 15 meter bands for emissions up to 16 kHz wide -- matching what existed in the 10 meter band but on a much smaller scale. Many of us wanted that limited to 9 kHz -- the same as the ARRL allowed for AM. The goal was to preserve the priveledges that currently exist in the phone/image segments (AM equivalent bandwidth) as the ARRL was shrinking bandwidths in the RTTY/data segments (currently unlimited bandwidth). 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - *From:* KH6TY mailto:kh...@comcast.net *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Saturday, March 06, 2010 14:01 UTC *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] A question about spread spectrum The other possible problem is wide-spreading spread spectrum. There was a failed attempt about 5 years ago by the ARRL HSMM (High Speed Multi-Media) proponents to allow spread spectrum on the HF bands with the argument that the signal is spread so widely, each carrier appears at any given frequency only a short time, so it would not significantly interfere with other users of the frequency, and could, for example, be allowed to cover the entire 20m band.
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to restricted by bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be a common language for frequency use mitigation. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June 1976) says Rather than further complicate the present rules, the Commission said, with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners' requests, we are herein proposing to delete all references to specific emission types in Part 97 of the Rules. We propose, instead, the Commission continued, to replace the present provisions with limitations on the permissible bandwidth which an amateur signal may occupy in the various amateur frequency bands. Within the authorised limitations any emission would be permitted. It would seem that deletion of emission types from Part 97 is exactly what is needed now to permit experimentation. Perhaps the FCC should be asked to re-introduce Docket 20777 Trevor
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Warren, Guess I should have better said, there is 'currently' no way. Universal use of RSID would make it possible to change to the other mode to communicate, but it has to be universally used, of course. Once you use the same mode, nothing special is needed. Just negotiate frequency changes using the interfering mode and then switch back to the one you were using. The point is only that there must be a way to communicate between stations trying to use the same frequency in order to have sharing. 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On *Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to restricted by bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be a common language for frequency use mitigation. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June 1976) says Rather than further complicate the present rules, the Commission said, with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners' requests, we are herein proposing to delete all references to specific emission types in Part 97 of the Rules. We propose, instead, the Commission continued, to replace the present provisions with limitations on the permissible bandwidth which an amateur signal
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Good point, Dave. I can see perhaps using RSID for digital mode separation, but I think phone has to always be separated from digital space. Even if the phone operator has a computer, he is not likely to fire up a digital mode in the middle of a phone QSO to ask someone to QSY or vice versa. 73 - Skip KH6TY Dave AA6YQ wrote: Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver – e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the “universal QRL” signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Warren Moxley *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On *Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to restricted by bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be a common language for frequency use mitigation. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org http://www.arrl.org On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June 1976) says Rather than further complicate the present rules, the Commission said, with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners' requests, we are herein proposing to delete all references to specific emission
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Olivia web site
Julian, An Olivia DLL already exists for MixW, but I do not think that it is documented sufficiently for others to use. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: OK. So could one create a DLL that could be called by Windows programs written in VB, VC++, Delphi etc. using MinGW? Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Stelios Bounanos m0...@... wrote: On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:09:50 -, g4ilo jul...@... said: I downloaded Pawel's source code for his text mode demo application and despite not knowing C++ managed eventually to compile and run it under Linux. However I understand that on Windows it must run under CygWin or MinGW which are a kind of Linux emulation. So quite a lot of work would need to be done to make it operate in a way that it could be called from other normal Windows programs. Cygwin and MinGW are not Linux emulation layers. Cygwin implements a *POSIX* compatibility layer on top of the win32 API, which requires dynamic linking to the cygwin1.dll library, but there is a compiler switch to disable this (-mno-cygwin). MinGW is a port of GCC to win32 with some headers and import libraries for the win32 API, plus better C99 support. Otherwise, it uses the MS runtime and is basically as native as it gets. -- 73, Stelios, M0GLD.
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Trouble is, many digital ops may not listen to the band, and CW is not easily read visually on a waterfall, except at very slow speeds. FWIW - some food for thought - I spotted an old friend, PJ2MI, using MFSK16 on 17M a couple of days ago, only because he was sending a CQ using video ID with both his call and mode. I would probably not known he was there if the had not sent the video ID, as I was in Olivia at the time. I had not worked 17m before and was looking for Olivia stations, not MFSK16. Of course the MFSK16 footprint is recognizable, but not who it is. 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: something simple like “QRL” in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.) At least this is an idea. Let's here more brain storming, even ones that sound silly at first might or can be modified to a solution or cause someone else to think in an entirely new way. --- On *Mon, 3/8/10, Dave AA6YQ /aa...@ambersoft.com/* wrote: From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 9:58 AM (unless the “Universal QRL signal” is something simple like “QRL” in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.) 73, Dave, 8P9RY *From:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. com] *On Behalf Of *Dave AA6YQ *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 11:55 AM *To:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Subject:* RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver – e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the “universal QRL” signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY *From:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. com] *On Behalf Of *Warren Moxley *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM *To:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On *Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast. net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast. net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since
Re: [digitalradio] RS ID survey today on 20M
Andy, Isn't the current recommendation now not to use RSID for PSK31 or RTTY? Take those out, and not much RSID use at all! 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: Here are the results of two hours of monitoring the entire digital band on 20M 14065-14110 37 BPSK31 25 BPSK250 04 RTTY45 02 MFSK16 01 CONTESTIA-8-250 Some of the above may be the same station (especially the PSK250) . In just over two hours only 5 modes heard. Seems we still have some ways to go in getting RSID to be used regularly. My SDR/Multipsk combo was set to respond only to RSIDs, other modes may have been in use without RSID. 18:06:17 UTC BPSK250 3902 Hz 17:50:38 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:46:04 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:45:24 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:39:34 UTC MFSK16 0.0041 M 17:38:46 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:37:44 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:36:42 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:36:11 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:35:09 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:34:38 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:31:43 UTC MFSK16 0.0040 M 17:30:06 UTC BPSK31 2454 Hz 17:30:06 UTC BPSK31 0.0021 M 17:29:24 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:28:54 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:26:20 UTC RTTY-45 0.0162 M 17:25:09 UTC RTTY-45 0.0123 M 17:23:19 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:23:19 UTC RTTY-45 0.0102 M 17:22:42 UTC RTTY-45 0.0141 M 17:21:32 UTC BPSK31 2395 Hz 17:21:31 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:20:51 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:20:12 UTC BPSK31 2390 Hz 17:20:12 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 17:04:30 UTC CONTESTIA-8-250 0.0008 M 17:03:17 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:59:18 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:57:58 UTC BPSK31 2702 Hz 16:57:57 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:52:37 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:51:22 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:51:10 UTC BPSK31 2869 Hz 16:50:33 UTC BPSK31 2863 Hz 16:49:58 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:49:18 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:48:43 UTC BPSK31 2298 Hz 16:48:43 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:48:07 UTC BPSK31 2293 Hz 16:47:04 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:30:16 UTC BPSK31 0.0012 M 16:27:04 UTC BPSK31 2401 Hz 16:27:03 UTC BPSK31 0.0020 M 16:26:24 UTC BPSK31 2395 Hz 15:47:56 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:47:27 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:40:21 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:39:53 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:39:34 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:38:11 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:37:06 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:36:18 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:36:08 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:35:39 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:35:00 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:33:41 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:33:01 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:32:51 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:31:40 UTC BPSK250 0.0081 M 15:31:34 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:31:07 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:30:59 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:22:41 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:22:22 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:22:00 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:21:35 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M 15:21:28 UTC BPSK250 689 Hz 15:21:25 UTC BPSK250 0.0080 M
Re: [digitalradio] RS ID survey today on 20M
It is easy to imagine that the BPSK250 RSID is probably being used mostly for PSKMAIL stations, which is a good idea now. Notice how the times are clustered. 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: Exactly ! On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:10 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh...@comcast.net wrote: Andy, Isn't the current recommendation now not to use RSID for PSK31 or RTTY? Take those out, and not much RSID use at all! 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Warren, I have several electronics patents and am often asked by laymen how one invents something, and what to do if they invent something. I advise them that very few inventors come up with something new and just make money off the patent royalties or sale itself. Instead, document and witness the idea, keep it a trade secret, and manufacture the item yourself. I had to do that when I created the first consumer VHF FM weather-alert radio in 1974 and, believe me, it was a difficult struggle, because so many thought the idea was worthless and would not back it. Nevertheless, I went ahead anyway, designed the radios, and built a factory to make them. Today, 27 years later, that concept has blossomed into an entire industry. With your extensive background in software, maybe people are looking to YOU to research and provide a workable solution. This will never work is just part of the discussion and brainstorming process, and not necessarily a negative statement. The idea is to keep throwing out ideas for criticism and discussion, even if at first glance the idea may appear to be unworkable to many. Yes, suggesting a successful solution often takes lots of thought, and sometimes hard work, if it is to be a reasonably good solution. Saying something will not work often spurs others to want to prove that it might. So, don't write those comments off as being completely negative - they just might well become the catalyst of an idea that will work. I had to go to the extreme step of teaching myself to program in Delphi just in order to write DigiTalk for the blind ham. Not being very smart, nor much of a programmer, it took me many months, but in the end, the program that speaks the PSK31 text as it comes in is in use by the blind ham community (Courage Hams) and I am almost ready to release an updated version for XP, VISTA, and W7 that works with Fldigi and Multipsk. So, solutions often only come about from long periods of struggle. Fldigi is open source, so anyone who wants to modify the source to add a solution and test it is welcome to do so. Maybe YOU can do it, since you already have a head start with your software experience. It is a good idea - now show us the solution! ;-) 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: I have used this Video ID myself after I have seen others do it. Some are using it to show the mode you are in, your Call sign, CQ CQ and just 73's. It is pretty effective. I have started using both RSID TX and Video ID. I have seen many that will use video ID but do not use or refuse to use RSID. The issue I see on many post is negative. That will never work because... I guess negative posts are easier than suggesting a possible solution. Maybe guys are not suggesting solutions because they think someone will shoot it down anyway so why try? It is better to try and fail than not try at all. I had a boss one time a long time ago tell me that it is easy to tell when a man is not working, he never makes any mistakes. --- On *Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 1:40 PM Trouble is, many digital ops may not listen to the band, and CW is not easily read visually on a waterfall, except at very slow speeds. FWIW - some food for thought - I spotted an old friend, PJ2MI, using MFSK16 on 17M a couple of days ago, only because he was sending a CQ using video ID with both his call and mode. I would probably not known he was there if the had not sent the video ID, as I was in Olivia at the time. I had not worked 17m before and was looking for Olivia stations, not MFSK16. Of course the MFSK16 footprint is recognizable, but not who it is. 73 - Skip KH6TY Warren Moxley wrote: something simple like “QRL” in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.) At least this is an idea. Let's here more brain storming, even ones that sound silly at first might or can be modified to a solution or cause someone else to think in an entirely new way. --- On *Mon, 3/8/10, Dave AA6YQ /aa...@ambersoft. com/* wrote: From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft. com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 9:58 AM (unless the “Universal QRL signal” is something simple like “QRL” in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.) 73, Dave, 8P9RY *From:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. com] *On Behalf Of *Dave AA6YQ *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 11:55 AM *To:* digitalradio@ yahoogroups
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
But under FCC regulations, phone and data must not operate in the same space, so how could phone be used? On the other hand, CW is allowed everywhere. Too bad it is no longer a requirement for a license, as it used to be universally understood by both phone and CW operators. 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: But everybody has phone capability. That should be adequate. *From: *Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com aa...@ambersoft.com *Reply-To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Date: *Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:54:48 -0400 *To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver -- e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the universal QRL signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Warren Moxley *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On *Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to restricted
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
There is another problem if phone and data are not in separate segments of the bands. Phone is the easiest to use interface to the radio. Everybody knows how to talk, so the demand for phone space is always greater than the demand for data space. The result is that if there were no restrictions, phone operators would take over the entire band and there would be no place for digital modes, even narrow ones, to operate. It is probably easier to accept as necessary the separation of phone and data on HF, where there is limited spectrum space, and look for a solution for different digital modes to communicate and share. On VHF and above, where there is much more space, there is no legal separation between data and phone. ATV is only allowed on UHF because it needs so much bandwidth and therefore there needs to be more space. 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: But everybody has phone capability. That should be adequate. *From: *Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com aa...@ambersoft.com *Reply-To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Date: *Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:54:48 -0400 *To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver -- e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the universal QRL signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Warren Moxley *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On *Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY /kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net/* wrote: From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely regulation by bandwidth is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal
Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
There still has to be a gentleman's agreement, or band plan, to separate phone and digital. Phone is in so much demand that allowing phone everywhere will result in phone operators just taking over the whole band. This was vetted thoroughly during the debates on ARRL's regulation by bandwidth petition, and it got nowhere! In addition, there can be as many as 50 PSK31 stations using the space needed by just one phone station, so those 50 PSK31 station can more easily share a fixed space (as is now done by gentleman's agreement) with other than to look for a space that might be taken by a phone station. If all emission types were eliminated, PSK31 stations would have a hard time finding any place at all to operate and other PSK31 stations would not know where to look for them if they did. With the current regulations, phone stations (i.e. wide) stay in specified spaces and data stations (i.e. relatively more narrow - MT63-2000 excluded for example) share the rest of the band with CW and other data stations by gentleman's agreement. It is not perfect, or course, especially during contests when the space is not large enough to hold all operators wanting to use it, but it probably works better than no phone/data legal division at all, because, unfortunately, as was found out, not all operators are gentlemen! There was an experiment in which rats were put into two cages. One had enough room and the other was overcrowded. It was not too long before some of the more powerful rats in the overcrowded cage ate the less powerful until there was no more overcrowding. This is similar to what would happen if phone stations could operate anywhere to avoid crowding. The same is true with powerful unattended digital stations, but the situation is even worse, since they cannot practically QSY. 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: True but I was thinking of wideband modes in phone segments. In narrowband segments CW is still an option as it can be decoded by many digi programs. *From: *KH6TY kh...@comcast.net kh...@comcast.net *Reply-To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Date: *Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:01:57 -0500 *To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 But under FCC regulations, phone and data must not operate in the same space, so how could phone be used? On the other hand, CW is allowed everywhere. Too bad it is no longer a requirement for a license, as it used to be universally understood by both phone and CW operators. 73 - Skip KH6TY W2XJ wrote: But everybody has phone capability. That should be adequate. *From: *Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com aa...@ambersoft.com *Reply-To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Date: *Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:54:48 -0400 *To: *digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver -- e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the universal QRL signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Warren Moxley *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com digitalradio@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is no way a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Paul, it works, at least in part, because the huge numbers of US amateurs in proportion across the border are regulated both by mode and by bandwidth. Radio does not stop at borders, of course, so what makes it work for the US helps make it work for Canada. Imagine what it would be like if there were no US regulations on unattended operations. Those automatic messaging systems would be covering the phone bands as well as everywhere else. They don't currently, only because they are not allowed to, but they would expand to cover the phone bands if there were regulation only by bandwidth so they could escape QRM by others like themselves. The bandwidth of Pactor-III is roughly the same as a phone signal, and unattended stations cannot QSY even if requested to do so. Imagine also if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the current phone and upper data segments. The complaints about NCDXF and Olivia QRM from ROS would be nothing compared to what it is already if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the same bandwidth as phone, and hordes of operators wanted to use ROS, and not just a relative few. This is another US regulation that is helping to limit the number of stations using a very wide bandwidth (i.e. to 222 MHz and above) when a more narrow bandwidth mode like Olivia or PSK31 can do the same, or almost the same, job in one fifth the space or less. If there were unlimited room on HF, regulation by bandwidth would work, as it already basically does at VHF frequencies and up, even under US regulations. Your question is a valid one, but the subject was hotly debated several years ago, resulting in no change to the status quo, because, although imperfect, it seems to work for the huge majority of amateurs all trying to use a very limited amount of spectrum on HF. Regulation by bandwidth would work if everyone were fair, but everyone is not fair, so there must be regulation by mode to protect the small or weak from the big and powerful, and to protect phone operators from QRM from wideband digital operations. Phone is wide and digital is usually more narrow, so regulation by bandwidth keeps phone out of the data segments, but would not keep wide data out of the phone segments. Once you make exceptions to regulation by bandwidth to exclude certain modes in a space, you no longer have regulation by bandwidth, but a combination of regulation by bandwidth and regulation by mode, which is what we have now in the US. 73 - Skip KH6TY Paul wrote: We are regulated in Canada by bandwidth and it works just fine here. I have read some of the comments about why it won't work but honestly... I haven't encountered any of those situations here. Maybe if the USA went to that system it would cause headaches and the situations described but if other countries can self police and have harmony I don't know why the US should be any different. We have a voluntary band plan and a regulated set of bandwidths and it works nicely. Anyway that's my 2 cents worth but HF communications would be simply marvelous if everyone was on the same page in terms of digital communications. Paul VE9NC BTW Please don't throw rocks at me... I am having a bad day.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Your are right, Julian. The current regulations mostly protect phone users from interference by other modes and digital users are left to figure out how to share what space is left. The division is approximately 50-50 between phone and digital what the FCC calls 'data/RTTY'. This is a holdover from the days when the only digital mode was CW and the only data mode was RTTY. Phone is the easiest to use human/rig interface, and the easiest to learn, so it is the preferred interface for most. Using 20m as an example, 150 kHz is allocated to RTTY/data (digital) and 200 kHz to phone. Assuming a 2.2kHz wide phone mode, there is room for approximately 90 phone stations. Assuming an average of 0.5 kHz wide digital modes, there is room for 300 digital stations. If everybody used a 2.2 kHz wide digital mode, there would only be room for 68 digital stations. CW is still the most-used digital mode, about .2 kHz wide, depending upon the speed, then RTTY, and now, PSK31, are next, and all the other digital modes have to make do with whatever space is left. The phone operators could complain that THEY are the second-class citizens and have not been allocated enough space in proportion to their numbers! What is really needed is digital voice in a more narrow bandwidth, instead of CD quality digital voice with a bandwidth of 2200 Hz, because there simply is not enough space for everyone to use wide modes of any kind. That is already possible today by combining speech-to-text with text-to-speech, but the voice is not your own, but synthesized voice. Dragon Software's Naturally Speaking 10 is now good enough speech-to-text with about a 1% error rate with enough training, and my DigiTalk program for the blind ham will speak the incoming PSK31 text as fast as it comes in, so that is essentially phone in a 50 Hz bandwidth, but without your own voice, and unnaturally slow speaking. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: I'm not sure I follow this argument. The fundamental problem is that, within the area allocated for digital modes, there is not enough space for many simultaneous contacts to take place using a 2.2kHz wide mode. This has not hitherto been much of a problem because until now there has not been much demand for using wide band digital modes. People live with interference from Pactor etc. because it comes in bursts and does not completely wreck a QSO. If hordes of operators wanted to use ROS then without the ability for them to expand upward in frequency the digital modes sub band would become unusable for anything else. All your current legislation does is protect the phone users from interference by other modes and make digital users second class citizens confined to a ghetto where anything goes. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Imagine also if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the current phone and upper data segments. The complaints about NCDXF and Olivia QRM from ROS would be nothing compared to what it is already if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the same bandwidth as phone, and hordes of operators wanted to use ROS, and not just a relative few.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Julian, Digital is what the FCC calls CW-RTTY/data. CW is digital so it is included and that is why the digital segment starts at 14.000. The ROS author is not a ham. I don't know who is guiding him, but legally as far as the US is concerned, he could go higher still and avoid Olivia, but I am not sure what else he will run into. Legally, there is another 40 kHz. Good point about radios having a long lifetime. When I introduced DigiPan and developed the PSK20 QRP transceiver in 2000, I naively designed the IF bandwidth for 4000 Hz, without realizing that almost every transceiver in the field only has a 2500 Hz If bandwidth. Some can be fitted with filters to get 3300 Hz bandwidth, but none could reach 4000 Hz! When we came out with PSK63, that extra width is very convenient, but still, the average transceiver is not going to see PSK63 signals at the top of the PSK31 activity, because the IF filter cuts them off. Live and learn, I guess... 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: Your figures for digital modes seem to assume we can use all the band from the bottom. In fact, digital starts at typically x.070 so there is really only room for half the number of digital stations. Also, if you can really go up to x.150 why has ROS jumped on top of Olivia when there is another 40kHz to play with? When you look at the bandplans digimodes only have about 40kHz per band which makes us very much the poor relation. I don't think digital voice will ever replace SSB, any more than PSK31 and other spectrally more efficient modes will replace RTTY. Radios have a long lifetime. But unlike digital modes whose bandwidth is fixed, phone can communicate using reduced bandwidth. Look what happens in a contest. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Your are right, Julian. The current regulations mostly protect phone users from interference by other modes and digital users are left to figure out how to share what space is left. The division is approximately 50-50 between phone and digital what the FCC calls 'data/RTTY'. This is a holdover from the days when the only digital mode was CW and the only data mode was RTTY. Phone is the easiest to use human/rig interface, and the easiest to learn, so it is the preferred interface for most. Using 20m as an example, 150 kHz is allocated to RTTY/data (digital) and 200 kHz to phone. Assuming a 2.2kHz wide phone mode, there is room for approximately 90 phone stations. Assuming an average of 0.5 kHz wide digital modes, there is room for 300 digital stations. If everybody used a 2.2 kHz wide digital mode, there would only be room for 68 digital stations. CW is still the most-used digital mode, about .2 kHz wide, depending upon the speed, then RTTY, and now, PSK31, are next, and all the other digital modes have to make do with whatever space is left. The phone operators could complain that THEY are the second-class citizens and have not been allocated enough space in proportion to their numbers! What is really needed is digital voice in a more narrow bandwidth, instead of CD quality digital voice with a bandwidth of 2200 Hz, because there simply is not enough space for everyone to use wide modes of any kind. That is already possible today by combining speech-to-text with text-to-speech, but the voice is not your own, but synthesized voice. Dragon Software's Naturally Speaking 10 is now good enough speech-to-text with about a 1% error rate with enough training, and my DigiTalk program for the blind ham will speak the incoming PSK31 text as fast as it comes in, so that is essentially phone in a 50 Hz bandwidth, but without your own voice, and unnaturally slow speaking. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: I'm not sure I follow this argument. The fundamental problem is that, within the area allocated for digital modes, there is not enough space for many simultaneous contacts to take place using a 2.2kHz wide mode. This has not hitherto been much of a problem because until now there has not been much demand for using wide band digital modes. People live with interference from Pactor etc. because it comes in bursts and does not completely wreck a QSO. If hordes of operators wanted to use ROS then without the ability for them to expand upward in frequency the digital modes sub band would become unusable for anything else. All your current legislation does is protect the phone users from interference by other modes and make digital users second class citizens confined to a ghetto where anything goes. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh6ty@ wrote: Imagine also if spread spectrum were allowed anywhere in the current phone and upper data segments. The complaints about NCDXF and Olivia QRM from ROS
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
The hope was that PSK63 could replace RTTY, being both spectrally more efficient, and more usable for a panoramic presentation for contesters to see who is on the band, but it never came about. Too bad, I think, because it would help reduce congestion during contests. PSK63's overall time to complete an exchange is roughly equal to RTTY (twice as fast as PSK31), which is considered too slow for RTTY contesting, but I don't understand why it has not been adopted. I even wrote an article on PSK63 for the National Contest Journal, but there appeared to be little interest and few comments. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: I don't think digital voice will ever replace SSB, any more than PSK31 and other spectrally more efficient modes will replace RTTY. Radios have a long lifetime. But unlike digital modes whose bandwidth is fixed, phone can communicate using reduced bandwidth. Look what happens in a contest. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Julian, Using FSK instead of AFSK means you can run a big amp Class-C and get more power output. Also, you do not have to worry about preserving linearity on a Class-AB or Class-B amplifier if running FSK,or figure out how to interface the computer to the rig for AFSK. Many of the big guns on RTTY have a huge investment in amplifiers and towers in order to win contests (RTTY is almost used exclusively for contesting these days), and I suspect they want to continue to take the competitive advantage of the sizable investment. Going to PSK63 will also level the playing field a lot and let the 100w station perform almost as well as the kilowatt station, and that would be to the competitive advantage to the 100w stations (or 50 watt stations, or even QRP stations). I wrote a demo PSK63 program module complete with panoramic display, for WriteLog, and Don, AA5AU (one of the top RTTY contesters and originator of SO2R), tried it and said he was just blown away by the potential for contesting. However, Wayne, the author of WriteLog ,which many top RTTY contesters use, said he would wait until PSK63 was adopted by contesters before he would incorporate it into WriteLog, and, as you know, PSK63 became popular in Europe, but not over here, so it never made it into WriteLog. An unfortunate chicken and egg situation! It is probably all of these things that keeps PSK63 from replacing RTTY for contesting, as well as there being no need for an interface since most transceivers have FSK built in these days. That is my best guess anyway. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: It also doesn't suffer from the ridiculous printing up garbage because a shift character was lost. If there ever was an outdated mode, it's RTTY. Unfortunately logic or technical arguments play very little part in the reason why people choose to use particular modes. Many RTTY operators insist on actually FSK-ing their radios instead of using AFSK, even though it means they have to accurately tune in every signal instead of just clicking on a waterfall, which would surely be quicker. Julian, G4ILO
Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
No, not by content, except for unallowed transmission of music, pornography, business communications, etc., there is no regulation by content. You can say or send whatever you wish. Content is the data delivered. The actual wording in the regulations is emission type instead of mode, but most understand that the emission type, phone is a mode of operation. Please refer to §97.305 Authorized emission types. 73 - Skip KH6TY expeditionradio wrote: KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Paul, it works, at least in part, because the huge numbers of US amateurs in proportion across the border are regulated both by mode and by bandwidth. Hi Skip, Perhaps you may want to re-phase that? USA ham sub-bands are regulated by content rather than mode/bandwidth. Bonnie KQ6XA
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
I can't fathom the reason for doing that, but if the tone frequencies are pseudo-randomly generated and then modulated by either on/off keying or some other way, you will have a spread spectrum system, similar to what is done in the ROS 2200 Hz-wide modes. The tones in a ssb transmitter simply generate rf carriers, so varying the tone frequencies is no different than varying a vfo frequency as far as the outside world sees. The distinction in spread spectrum is the generation of the tone frequencies independently of the data. I.e., you first generate a tone frequency in a psudo-random manner and then convey intelligence by modulating the resulting rf carriers. 73 - Skip KH6TY Ralph Mowery wrote: Correct but you still have not answered my question. Indeed If I use one tone and key it on / off I have a cw transmitter, transmitting on the VJO frequebcy = or - the audio frequency. What do I have if I just change the tones in a random fashion? 73 Rein W6SZ If a total random fashion, then you have a bunch of junk. It will not convey any useful information and probably illeagle in the ham bands. There must be order to it to convey any useful information.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
The difference between spread spectrum and other systems is the pseudo-random generating of the frequencies and not frequencies determined by the data. It was originally done to prevent decoding without the synchronization code. It is only disallowed under FCC regulations on that basis. SSB also uses frequency spreading as has already been noted, but the frequencies are determined by the code. That is why there is no reason not to allow ROS except that technically the frequencies are independently determined by pseudo-random code generator. Modify the regulations to limit the bandwidth and require third-party monitoring and ROS would be legal, but as the regulations stand, rightly or wrongly, we are required to abide by them. The petition process with public comment prevents harmful emissions from being used. Glad we are at the point you wanted to make. I have spent much to much time on this FHSS vs regulations issue, so I have to go on to something else now. The FCC has spoken, and correctly so, and if anyone wants to petition to change the regulations, they can do so. 73 - Skip KH6TY rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Hi Skip, Thanks, we have arrived at the point I wanted to get to, So lets go a little further on this path, suppose I changed the tones in a not so random fashion. Like I had a way to generate tones as I do when I speak or make music or like some of those synthesizers or whatever they are, do not know the details exactly, but they generate tones that make up language that it understandable, with training would that be spread spectrum? You say varying the tones is the same as varying the VFO to the outside world, is that science? Would it make a difference if feed the balance modulator with 100 Hz or 2500 Hz. lets switch between to tunes, teletype, is that SS? If I produce speech it is speech if the tones do not form speech, it is ss modulation? Are you seeing that SSB is SS? as A kid I use to build oscillators I could speak to them, and they would swing, and could hear speach in a radio, unstability or FM , SS? Lets get to the core is WSJT spread spectrum and please explain to me why. I just do not seem to get it... Explain me the physics of it. please I just like to understand this. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net Sent: Mar 9, 2010 7:04 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts I can't fathom the reason for doing that, but if the tone frequencies are pseudo-randomly generated and then modulated by either on/off keying or some other way, you will have a spread spectrum system, similar to what is done in the ROS 2200 Hz-wide modes. The tones in a ssb transmitter simply generate rf carriers, so varying the tone frequencies is no different than varying a vfo frequency as far as the outside world sees. The distinction in spread spectrum is the generation of the tone frequencies independently of the data. I.e., you first generate a tone frequency in a psudo-random manner and then convey intelligence by modulating the resulting rf carriers. 73 - Skip KH6TY Ralph Mowery wrote: Correct but you still have not answered my question. Indeed If I use one tone and key it on / off I have a cw transmitter, transmitting on the VJO frequebcy = or - the audio frequency. What do I have if I just change the tones in a random fashion? 73 Rein W6SZ If a total random fashion, then you have a bunch of junk. It will not convey any useful information and probably illeagle in the ham bands. There must be order to it to convey any useful information.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
Julian, By definition, it is SS if the pattern is independently generated from the data. The original intent of FHSS was to make third-party decoding impossible without knowledge of the code that generated the tones or carriers. FCC rules disallow encryption because we are required to police the bands ourselves. As long as there is not a pattern to the frequencies generated, that is independent of the data, one of the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as FHSS is missing. However, in the case of ROS, the repeated pattern is not there, so, until the regulations are changed, ROS is illegal FHSS, even though the spreading is limited and capable of third-party monitoring. That is a result of a historical attempt to prevent encryption, but this can probably be changed through the petition process with public comment. Until then, hams in the US have no choice but to abide by the regulations as written. In the author's own words, three necessary and sufficient elements make it SS, and a search of the literature says the same: 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. The operative phase here is independent of the data. It is just unfortunate that the FCC regulations, as currently written, do not allow ROS on HF and that they really need to be updated. Note that SS is already permittted above 222 MHz, where there is plenty of space to use for spreading that does not exist on HF. In fact, the encryption aspect is not even mentioned, except in other parts of the regulations disallowing encryption. The regulations were obviously written to prevent extremely wide SS signals from interfering with other users. Since ROS is no wider than a phone signal, there is no reason the regulations should not be modified to allow it (perhaps with other necessary limitations), but until then, and right now, ROS is illegal below 222 Mhz. It is that simple! Compare the repeated pattern of MFSK64 to the random pattern of ROS as data is applied. Substituting a 2- page technical description which is COMPLETELY different from the 7-page description of ROS as FHSS in an obvious attempt to circumvent FCC regulations is simply not believable, as an apparent twisting of the FCC's statement of illegality was apparently not true either. Which version is to be believed? Well, we don't need to decide that, and you apparently cannot believe anything the author claims since he keeps claiming something else! Anyone, including the FCC, can simply observe the differences in the spectral footprint of each, which is plainly shown here in a comparison of MFSK64 and ROS 1 baud at 2200 Hz width: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/compare.zip Note how the repetitive sending of data () does not result in any repetitive pattern on ROS, but it does in MFSK64, and MFSK64 idles with a repeated pattern, but ROS does not. The ROS tones are obviously not determined by the data and are also pseudo-randomly generated - definitely FHSS. The FCC regulations describe permitted and not permitted (i.e. SS and others) emissions. They could care less about what a mode is called or how it is described by someone, because in the final analysis, we are required to maintain our EMISSIONS per the regulations, or have the regulations changed through the petition and public comment process. Had the author not tried so hard to convince everyone that ROS was Spread Spectrum, this debate would probably never have occurred. It was the term, Spread Spectrum that raised red flags among US hams who are knowledgeable of the regulations we operate under, and they were right in realizing that, as a result, ROS is illegal on HF unless the regulations are changed. The FCC then confirmed that through the ARRL. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: Is the random or pseudo-random manner of generating the tones or carriers an essential element of spread-spectrum? If so, and if the aim of using such a method is not to obfuscate the message but only to provide better immunity to interference and path variations, would you be any worse off using a repeated pattern of tones instead of a pseudo-randomly generated one? And if you did that, would it still be spread-spectrum? Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: I can't fathom the reason for doing that, but if the tone frequencies are pseudo-randomly generated and then modulated by either on/off keying or some other way, you will have a spread spectrum system, similar to what
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
He did, I guess, when he added a 500Hz-wide mode. The footprint of that mode indicates it is probably FSK as he tried to claim for the 2200 Hz-wide mode. He says he submitted a technical description to the FCC but will not release it until he gets an OK. Don't know what to believe from him these days, though! A further problem is the the new mode is included under the ROS name, and the 2200Hz-wide mode still looks like spread spectrum, unchanged from earlier. So if the FCC approves ROS on the basis of the new 500 Hz-wide mode, operators may think the 2200Hz-wide mode is now legal also. Still not a good situation! 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: Skip. Thank you for the comprehensive explanation. I understand why ROS is illegal under your rules. The point of my question was, if FHSS is illegal, why not simply modify the mode (which after all is experimental and does not have a large number of users) to use a non random way of generating the tones? Instead of rewriting the description to falsely claim ROS is not SS, why could he not have changed the mode so that it really was not SS? What does ROS gain by using SS over another mode that carries the same amount of data at the same speed using the same bandwidth and the same number of tones but uses an entirely predictable method of modulation? Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: Julian, By definition, it is SS if the pattern is independently generated from the data. The original intent of FHSS was to make third-party decoding impossible without knowledge of the code that generated the tones or carriers. FCC rules disallow encryption because we are required to police the bands ourselves. As long as there is not a pattern to the frequencies generated, that is independent of the data, one of the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as FHSS is missing. However, in the case of ROS, the repeated pattern is not there, so, until the regulations are changed, ROS is illegal FHSS, even though the spreading is limited and capable of third-party monitoring. That is a result of a historical attempt to prevent encryption, but this can probably be changed through the petition process with public comment. Until then, hams in the US have no choice but to abide by the regulations as written. In the author's own words, three necessary and sufficient elements make it SS, and a search of the literature says the same: 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. The operative phase here is independent of the data.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question for experts
Jose, If you were going to design a mode that filled 2200 Hz, but did not use SS, and was as sensitive as possible in that bandwidth, how would you do it? It would have to be highly resistant to fast Doppler shift also, but minimum S/N would be the most important parameter, as it would be used at UHF. So far, Olivia 16-500 seems to be the best compromise between minimum S/N and Doppler shift survival at UHF. The more narrow Olivia modes, even though more sensitive, do not decode as well if there is noticeable fast Doppler shift, and sometimes, not at all. DominoEx is completely destroyed by the Doppler shift and MFSK16 is not tolerant enough to drift to be usable at UHF. MT63-2000 covers 2000 Hz, has highly redundant FEC, but the minimum S/N is only -2 dB, so that is not an alternative. What I am looking for is a mode that will copy under the visible and audible noise on UHF during deep fades, but survives fast Doppler shift. Olivia 16-500 makes it down to the noise, but not under, during deep fades. CW by ear is just slightly better than Olivia 16-500, and the note is very raspy sounding - much like Aurora communications. Another observation - most stations I copy on ROS 16 are reading a metric of -12 dB or greater. Only once have I copied a station (using 1 baud ROS) that was measuring a metric under -25 dB. Is the ROS metric supposed to correlate with the path S/N? I ask this because even the weakest ROS tones at 1 baud are still visible on the waterfall, whereas weak Olivia 32-1000 signals with a -12 dB minimum S/N stop decoding just about the time the tones become hard to see in the noise, but still can be heard faintly. It is a long way from even -25 dB S/N to -12 dB S/N, so I would expect if the metric is just another way to say S/N, I would not be able to see the tones, yet I can, and not only on the ROS waterfall, but on the DigiPan waterfall as well. 73 - Skip KH6TY Jose A. Amador wrote: El 10/03/2010 7:57, g4ilo escribió: What does ROS gain by using SS over another mode that carries the same amount of data at the same speed using the same bandwidth and the same number of tones but uses an entirely predictable method of modulation? Processing gain. Signals correlated with the hopping sequence add up, non correlated signals do not add up. It does not mean that SS is not a predictable modulation method, you just need to know the key, in the USA, the key must be one of a few specific codes, and if you don't have the key, security by obscurity applies. 73, Jose, CO2JA
Re: [digitalradio] SS definitions
Alan, though we may disagree as to the amount or nature of FHSS in ROS, the bottom line is that the FCC engineers, as well as the ARRL engineers, reviewed both the documentation and the signal footprint, and have concluded it is FHSS. While their opinion might be changed through dialog, that is unlikely at this point, so the most sure approach is just to agree it is FHSS and petition for a variance with necessary limitations. It is highly unlikely that the FCC will reverse their decision, especially since the author, whom the FCC expected to tell the truth, wrote a 9-page paper claiming it was FHSS, titles, INTRODUCTION TO ROS: THE SPREAD SPECTRUM. To try to re-characterize it as something else in order to get approval puts the credibility of the author in serious doubt, especially after the fiasco over the posting of an FCC announcement that it was legal that the FCC claims they did not make. Admit it is FHSS, but petition for a variance or modification of the rules to allow it on the basis that it is not harmful to other modes, and that will probably be granted. It is too late, and too much dirty water has passed under the bridge, to even imagine that any other way can be successful. I think we have beat this horse to death at this point and should move on to another topic. 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: I'll preface this by saying that I'm not trying to defend or crucify ROS. But when we are dealing with definitions the FCC, it's very important we be clear accurate on our definitions. KH6TY wrote: By definition, it is SS if the pattern is independently generated from the data. One test, but not the only test The original intent of FHSS was to make third-party decoding impossible without knowledge of the code that generated the tones or carriers. True, emphasis on original intent. There are many, many SS implementations usages that are not done to prevent third party decoding. It's actually a very good way to share spectrum with dissimilar usages. And nearly all FHSS can be easily decoded independent of knowing the code now unless the data itself is highly encrypted. FCC rules disallow encryption because we are required to police the bands ourselves. As long as there is not a pattern to the frequencies generated, that is independent of the data, one of the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as FHSS is missing. This is overly simplistic. I have first hand experience with FCC dealings with regard to code generators used for randomization of amateur digital signals. All that is required is to make available upon demand the code sequence. You don't have to offer a decoder, nor do OO's have to be able to monitor it, etc. Just make the code sequence available upon request. However, in the case of ROS, the repeated pattern is not there, so, until the regulations are changed, ROS is illegal FHSS, even though the spreading is limited and capable of third-party monitoring. Sorry, this is overly simplistic. Many US legal codec/modems do not meet this test. ROS may or may not be legal, but it's not your repeated test definition that makes it so. The most legit issue that technically makes it SS is that a single data bit is sliced into smaller bits when sent. IE: the code rate is much greater than the data rate. (which directly correlates with spreading factor as well). That is a result of a historical attempt to prevent encryption, but this can probably be changed through the petition process with public comment. Until then, hams in the US have no choice but to abide by the regulations as written. First hand experience: It does not take petition with public comment. Just professional dialog with the FCC, and a willingness to provide details on the encoding sequence if requested. In the author's own words, three necessary and sufficient elements make it SS, and a search of the literature says the same: 1. The signal occupies a bandwidth much in excess of the minimum bandwidth necessary to send the information. 2. Spreading is accomplished by means of a spreading signal, often called a code signal, which is independent of the data. 3. At the receiver, despreading (recovering the original data) is accomplished by the correlation of the received spread signal with a synchronized replica of the spreading signal used to spread the information. This is close to, but not exactly the ITU (and thus US Federal) definition of SS. But I agree with you, ROS by the author's description met the legal definition of SS. But the real question is, should it be treated the same as traditional SS which normally uses a much larger (100x or more) spreading factor and thus would negatively impact an entire HF amateur allocation. The operative phase here is independent of the data. So how bout randomizers used to maximize average power? (used reduce crest factor). Viterbi encoders? It is just unfortunate that the FCC regulations, as currently written
Re: [digitalradio] SS definitions
Engineers that work for the FCC, of course. Their names are not ordinarily revealed and the mouthpiece of the FCC is a customer service agent (and for some amateur matters, the ARRL, who relays information from the FCC offices). This structure should be fairly obvious to anyone with experience in business. Trevor, Ask Toyota for the names of the engineers investigating the unexpected acceleration and I doubt that you will get an answer! Ask the President who is responsible for reports from the White House and you will only find out through a legal action. I am sure these walls are set up to protect employees from frivolous attacks. However, there is a Freedom of Information Act that can be invoked through legal action to obtain some internal documents of the government, but they are generally not offered to the public without a court order, for obvious reasons. The FCC customer service agent is the person who relays decisions to the public, and that agent probably does not make the decisions personally or without consultation. This is analogous to the Press Secretary of the White House. If you want to verify the originator of a decision, you have a right to do so through the appropriate legal process. The FCC's customer service agent has relayed a FCC decision to reaffirm that ROS is indeed FHSS and that, under current rules, as docemented in Part 97, SS is only allowed above 222 MHz. That is generally the way it works on this side of the pond, and we have no choice but to abide by the system or petition for change. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: --- On Wed, 10/3/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net wrote: Alan, though we may disagree as to the amount or nature of FHSS in ROS, the bottom line is that the FCC engineers, as well as the ARRL engineers, reviewed both the documentation and the signal footprint, and have concluded it is FHSS. Who are these FCC Engineers ? All we've has is a response from someone that may be assumed to be an office clerk who simply quoted back the words in Part 97. 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: [digitalradio] SS definitions
Trevor, I might add that it is often the practice in this country for a higher court just to either reaffirm or remand a lower court decision, instead of issuing a differing decision itself. I am sure that the FCC, as a government body, also adheres to this practice. That is why the original decision of the FCC, as originally related by the customer service agent, simply reaffirms the original finding. The official word from the FCC, through one of their spokesmen, is that ROS is spread spectrum and that will stand until modified by the petition process. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: --- On Wed, 10/3/10, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net wrote: Alan, though we may disagree as to the amount or nature of FHSS in ROS, the bottom line is that the FCC engineers, as well as the ARRL engineers, reviewed both the documentation and the signal footprint, and have concluded it is FHSS. Who are these FCC Engineers ? All we've has is a response from someone that may be assumed to be an office clerk who simply quoted back the words in Part 97. 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: [digitalradio] SS definitions (here are the ITU, NITA, and Fed Std)
Alan, please carry on the debate with someone else. I have spent a huge amount of time on this issue, trying to help in whatever way I can, although I do not have all the answers, obviously. I need to do something other than sit in front of this computer all day! Have fun, 73 - Skip KH6TY Alan Barrow wrote: KH6TY wrote: Alan, though we may disagree as to the amount or nature of FHSS in ROS, Actually, I think we agree, just for different reasons. I really don't care about ROS. But do care about dangerous precedents. :-) the bottom line is that the FCC engineers, as well as the ARRL engineers, reviewed both the documentation and the signal footprint, and have concluded it is FHSS. I think we all agree it's a micro form of FHSS. I'm not sure I agree the FCC engineers have ruled. If Bill Cross or similar commented, that'd be definitive. But the ARRL interpretation of the FCC dialog still is pretty ambiguous. Lot's of the author stated and each operator has to Compare it with the ruling on Pactor 3 when challenged on a similar crusade. That's clear unambiguous, it was not FDM, even though it could be construed as such on a micro scale. And that crusade had similar arguments mis-statements. While their opinion might be changed through dialog, that is unlikely at this point, so the most sure approach is just to agree it is FHSS and petition for a variance with necessary limitations. Again, I think the real area to petition is not about ROS itself. That has been so badly handled from all sides it's probably tainted. And to be clear: Amateur radio was the net loser. The real issue is around applying macro definitions (like ITU SS, traditionally broadband, wide spreading factor) to a micro (SSB, non broadband) implementation like ROS. Put another way, what would an HF optimized SS mode do that other modes do not? What would be the negative? And factor in the potential (done right) of improved interoperation with other modes, signal processing gain, etc. And potential channel sharing (concurrent users). I think we have beat this horse to death at this point and should move on to another topic. Well, that would be great, except you keep refering to the must have idle tones like my grand-dad's rtty test. Again, I don't really care about ROS. This dialog is about the idea of using carrier patterns at idle or steady zero's/ones (like ancient RTTY) as a test for SS. That's just not it. We *are* allowed to encode data in a pseudo-random pattern, as long as the other SS tests are not triggered. Instead of concocting our own definitions, let's refer to the standards. ITU, which is referenced by NTIA, which is referenced by Fed Std, which is also reference by some FCC commercial definitions. It's the closest we have and is attached below. What's still not 100% is whether a SSB signal with a fixed dial frequency (and implied fixed carrier frequency) would be considered SS just because the audio sent changed in a SS fashion. It's back to is FSK AFSK the same mode, or just happen to look the same. Which is becoming tiresome, and makes me think reminisce about the traditional anti new mode (PSK, Pactor, ALE, whatever) crusades. :-) Remember, PSK was going to ruin the world as well. So was SSB in it's day! Have fun, Alan km4ba Here are the ITU definitions. Note the spreading factor definitions, etc: *Term* : spread spectrum (SS) system *Definition* : System in which the average energy of the transmitted signal is spread over a bandwidth which is much wider than the information bandwidth (the bandwidth of the transmitted signal is wider than the information bandwidth by at least a factor of two for double sideband AM and typically a factor of four or greater for narrow-band FM, and 100 to 1 for a linear SS system). *Term* : Direct sequence (DS) spread spectrum *Definition* : signal structuring technique utilizing a digital code spreading sequence having a chip rate 1/Tsin much higher than the information signal bit rate 1/Ts. Each information bit of the digital signal is transmitted as a pseudo-random sequence of chips, which produces a broad noise-like spectrum with a bandwidth (distance between first nulls) of 2 Bsin ? 2/Tsin. The receiver correlates the RF input signal with a local copy of the spreading sequence to recover the narrow-band data information at a rate 1/Ts. ***Term* : Frequency-hopping (FH) spread spectrum *Definition* : signal structuring technique employing automatic switching of the transmitted frequency. Selection of the frequency to be transmitted is typically made in a pseudo-random manner from a set of frequencies covering a band wider than the information bandwidth. The intended receiver frequency-hops in synchronization with the transmitter in order to retrieve the desired information. Here's the NTIA redbook definitions, which is also reference in Fed-Std 1037c: Spread Spectrum: A signal structuring technique that employs direct sequence, frequency
Re: [digitalradio] FCC - Spread Spectrum NPRM
Extensive tests on 70cm using ROS 16 baud spread spectrum have been disappointing. ROS appears to be unable to survive the Doppler shift and Doppler induced flutter so prevalent on that band. The hope was that ROS 16 baud would make traditional communications possible that were difficult on SSB phone because of the Doppler shift and flutter. However, the tests show that Olivia 32-1000, in half the bandwidth, and Olivia 16-500, produce print when ROS only prints garbage. This, together with the fact that both stations must be within 400 Hz of each other before even trying to communicate, instead of being able to tune with the mouse as is possible with Olivia, makes it very difficult to achieve a QSO on 70cm using ROS. Olivia has therefore proven to be much more successful than ROS on UHF. Tests using the ROS 1 baud variation will be made next, but the slow speed of that mode is more suited to EME communications than normal QSO's. In two weeks of monitoring ROS 16 baud on 20m, there has been only one observed case where the S/N was under where Olivia 32-1000 can decode, so even on HF, there does not appear to be any justification for using such a wide mode, even if spread spectrum were permitted on HF in the US. Just use Olivia or MFSK16 instead when band conditions are poor. The new narrow band ROS modes were not tested, since a mode to do better than Olivia is what is needed, and the spread spectrum mode of ROS held the best hope. As it stands, only CW is better than Olivia under the worst conditions, and only when copying by ear, but CW is only a little better than Olivia 16-500. We have also found that the more narrow Olivia modes (i.e. 500 Hz wide) are also too greatly disturbed by Doppler to be useful either. If anyone is within 200 miles of FM02, has 100 watts and an antenna gain of 17 dBi or greater, and would like to try ROS 16 baud on UHF, I am available to do that. I promised to post the results of our attempts to use ROS on UHF on this reflector, and this is what we have found. So, it looks like Olivia is currently still the best digital mode to use on UHF, VHF, or HF for normal (not EME) digital QSO's. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: Regarding Spread Spectrum Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/18/11396/?nc=1 http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/18/11396/?nc=1 It proposes to reduce some of the restrictions on Spread Spectrum but unfortunately does nothing about permitting the use at HF and VHF of SS modes that completely fit within the bandwidth of a phone signal (say 3 kHz on HF and 15 kHz on VHF). It says comments can be filed on or before 30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register. Instructions on how to file comments on the NPRM only are listed on pages 6-7 in the NPRM. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-38A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-38A1.pdf Electronic Comment Filing System http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: [digitalradio] FCC - Spread Spectrum NPRM
Andy, As I read it, the NPRM did not disturb the current FCC ruling that spread spectrum is only allowed above 222 Mhz, so that is still in force. What it did was modify the power and power monitoring requirements. 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: I read the proposed rule making and did not find any reference to frequency/band. So, where is it saying SS is allow but only on 220Mhz and above ? On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 6:11 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh...@comcast.net wrote: Extensive tests on 70cm using ROS 16 baud spread spectrum have been disappointing. ROS appears to be unable to survive the Doppler shift and Doppler induced flutter so prevalent on that band. The hope was that ROS 16 baud would make traditional communications possible that were difficult on SSB phone because of the Doppler shift and flutter. However, the tests show that Olivia 32-1000, in half the bandwidth, and Olivia 16-500, produce print when ROS only prints garbage. This, together with the fact that both stations must be within 400 Hz of each other before even trying to communicate, instead of being able to tune with the mouse as is possible with Olivia, makes it very difficult to achieve a QSO on 70cm using ROS. Olivia has therefore proven to be much more successful than ROS on UHF. Tests using the ROS 1 baud variation will be made next, but the slow speed of that mode is more suited to EME communications than normal QSO's. In two weeks of monitoring ROS 16 baud on 20m, there has been only one observed case where the S/N was under where Olivia 32-1000 can decode, so even on HF, there does not appear to be any justification for using such a wide mode, even if spread spectrum were permitted on HF in the US. Just use Olivia or MFSK16 instead when band conditions are poor. The new narrow band ROS modes were not tested, since a mode to do better than Olivia is what is needed, and the spread spectrum mode of ROS held the best hope. As it stands, only CW is better than Olivia under the worst conditions, and only when copying by ear, but CW is only a little better than Olivia 16-500. We have also found that the more narrow Olivia modes (i.e. 500 Hz wide) are also too greatly disturbed by Doppler to be useful either. If anyone is within 200 miles of FM02, has 100 watts and an antenna gain of 17 dBi or greater, and would like to try ROS 16 baud on UHF, I am available to do that. I promised to post the results of our attempts to use ROS on UHF on this reflector, and this is what we have found. So, it looks like Olivia is currently still the best digital mode to use on UHF, VHF, or HF for normal (not EME) digital QSO's. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: Regarding Spread Spectrum Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/18/11396/?nc=1 http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/18/11396/?nc=1 It proposes to reduce some of the restrictions on Spread Spectrum but unfortunately does nothing about permitting the use at HF and VHF of SS modes that completely fit within the bandwidth of a phone signal (say 3 kHz on HF and 15 kHz on VHF). It says comments can be filed on or before 30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register. Instructions on how to file comments on the NPRM only are listed on pages 6-7 in the NPRM. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-38A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-38A1.pdf Electronic Comment Filing System http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ 73 Trevor M5AKA
Re: [digitalradio] FCC - Spread Spectrum NPRM
Hi Jose, We will be starting with tests of ROS 1 baud tomorrow but I will not have any results until next week, after we have been able to make tests over several days and under many different conditions. The tests with ROS 16 baud have been finished and our results are as I have already reported. Perhaps if the spreading were much wider, say as much a 10 kHz or 20 kHz, the result might be better, but then nobody on UHF SSB has an IF filter wider than 2.5 kHz anyway. It would probably take at least a SDR on both ends, I think, but so far those are still rare, even though they make excellent IF's for VHF and UHF transverters. So, wider spreading is just not practical. Whatever it is that is causing a raspy CW note, and raspy sounding ROS tones, must be destroying the data modulation on the carriers, but I do not know enough about the modulation technique or the autocorrelation function that ROS uses to understand why that is causing ROS to fail. Perhaps it is because EVERY tone in the bandpass is so badly distorted that autocorrelation is not possible and decoding fails (i.e. is the Doppler shift perhpas moving the carriers outside some very narrow DSP filter?). As best I can remember from my college days (50 years ago!), autocorrelation will only work if reoccurring signals are identified among random noise, but if the tones are distorted so they appear too much like the noise, correlation may not be possible. I am sure experienced communications theorists can make a better guess than I can! The Olivia tones are also raspy sounding, but Olivia survives and ROS does not. When the tones sound pure, ROS does OK, but that does not happen very often at fringe area reception on UHF, and mostly only when there is propagation enhancement. 73 - Skip KH6TY I promised to post the results of our attempts to use ROS on UHF on this reflector, and this is what we have found. So, it looks like Olivia is currently still the best digital mode to use on UHF, VHF, or HF for normal (not EME) digital QSO's. Skip, please do tell us. I am particularly quite curious about the results of your tests. 73, Jose, CO2JA
Re: [digitalradio] FCC - Spread Spectrum NPRM
John, The raspy sound is similar to that associated with aurora, but this far south, aurora is very rare, and the raspy tone is there almost all the time, every day, if there is no propagation enhancement. So I don't think it is caused by aurora, but if you picture how aurora looks visually, with curtains of light moving about, it makes one wonder if the tropospheric scattering is also unstable in a similar way. The general consensus is that VHF/UHF communication over the curvature of the earth (i.e. past line of sight ) is mostly by either tropospheric scattering or by ducting. What makes the medium unstable in the manner observed does not seem to be well understood. Check the Hepburn prediction page for an excellent discussion of tropospheric scattering: http://www.dxinfocentre.com/tropo.html scroll down to the bottom, past the maps, and see the links in yellow - really fascinating reading! 73 - Skip KH6TY Jon Maguire wrote: Skip, Just a thought, but raspy signals on VHF/UHF are usually associated with aurora. Can you correlate that? 73... Jon W1MNK PS Great discussion!! KH6TY wrote: Hi Jose, We will be starting with tests of ROS 1 baud tomorrow but I will not have any results until next week, after we have been able to make tests over several days and under many different conditions. The tests with ROS 16 baud have been finished and our results are as I have already reported. Perhaps if the spreading were much wider, say as much a 10 kHz or 20 kHz, the result might be better, but then nobody on UHF SSB has an IF filter wider than 2.5 kHz anyway. It would probably take at least a SDR on both ends, I think, but so far those are still rare, even though they make excellent IF's for VHF and UHF transverters. So, wider spreading is just not practical. Whatever it is that is causing a raspy CW note, and raspy sounding ROS tones, must be destroying the data modulation on the carriers, but I do not know enough about the modulation technique or the autocorrelation function that ROS uses to understand why that is causing ROS to fail. Perhaps it is because EVERY tone in the bandpass is so badly distorted that autocorrelation is not possible and decoding fails (i.e. is the Doppler shift perhpas moving the carriers outside some very narrow DSP filter?). As best I can remember from my college days (50 years ago!), autocorrelation will only work if reoccurring signals are identified among random noise, but if the tones are distorted so they appear too much like the noise, correlation may not be possible. I am sure experienced communications theorists can make a better guess than I can! The Olivia tones are also raspy sounding, but Olivia survives and ROS does not. When the tones sound pure, ROS does OK, but that does not happen very often at fringe area reception on UHF, and mostly only when there is propagation enhancement. 73 - Skip KH6TY I promised to post the results of our attempts to use ROS on UHF on this reflector, and this is what we have found. So, it looks like Olivia is currently still the best digital mode to use on UHF, VHF, or HF for normal (not EME) digital QSO's. Skip, please do tell us. I am particularly quite curious about the results of your tests. 73, Jose, CO2JA
Re: [digitalradio] ROS on UHF
Simon HB9DRV wrote: There's a lot more to Olivia than being multi-tone MFSK. I am aware of that, Simon. However, Olivia is currently the most popular digital mode other than PSK31 and RTTY, and the question was if ROS 16 baud was worth using twice the bandwidth of Olivia. We hoped that it would be, because on UHF, space is not at a premium as it is on HF, but ROS 16 baud, (the spread spectrum variation) at 2250 Hz width, was not even as good as SSB phone under the fast Doppler flutter conditions. So, as a choice of modes currently available, either MFSK16 (my personal preference on HF, but impractical on UHF due to the necessity to tune so accurately and have little or no drift) or Olivia, is a far better choice than ROS, and performs better. We would like nothing better if there were a mode that outperformed Olivia at equivalent typing speed, and could copy further into the noise than Olivia can, and is more tolerant to mis-tuning or drift than MFSK16, but so far ROS is not the one. As things stand, CW (decoded by ear) is currently the last mode standing, but it seems it must be possible to come up a mode that can beat CW under the typical conditions found on UHF. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Congratulations Simon! DAYTON HAMVENTION Awards Technical Excellence* - Simon Brown / HB9DRV
*Technical Excellence* - Simon Brown / HB9DRV for the invention and development of Ham Radio Deluxe. Well deserved, Simon! I am using HRD for remote operation, and the standalone HRDrotator program is perfect for what we do. HRD is an amazing accomplishment and I am so glad you got such a prestigious award! 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] ROS on UHF]
Based on observations of the tones on the waterfall on the air, compared to observing them locally, and hearing the raucous tones compared to bell-like quality locally, my guess is that perhaps the modulation is disturbed or the tones moved in frequency far enough so there is no decoding. If we try to use DominoEx, which is very tolerant to drift, the Doppler distortion also stops DominoEx from decoding. MFSK16 is not usable, because the Doppler shift is so great that tuning is lost and the AFC cannot follow it. It is not unusual to see a slow Doppler shift of 50 Hz to 100 Hz on 70cm, but the most severe problem is a fast Doppler distortion which is present almost all the time and destroys the integrity of the carriers, at least as it is possible to hear and see on the waterfall. I can't compare ROS on HF to UHF, except for monitoring, as it is illegal to transmit on HF, but monitoring on HF does not show the same problems. I have seen ROS signals start printing garbage on HF in a QSB fade and then recover when the fade ends, but there is no published specification for the minimum S/N that the 16 baud variation is supposed to work at. Even when there is no QRM, I have seen decoding of ROS 16 baud, 2250 Hz width, stop at metrics of -8 dB. If this corresponds to S/N, then the 16 baud version does not compare favorably with Olivia or MFSK16, which can work 4 dB to 5 dB lower. My guess is that the problem is not because the spreading in ROS is too little, but on UHF, that the tones themselves are disturbed in a way that makes ROS just print garbage when Olivia is still printing quite well. ROS stopped decoding today even when SSB phone was about Q4 copy, and under those conditions Olivia prints without any errors. Unfortunately the way it is now, we are unable to successfully use ROS on UHF, for whatever the reason, and it is illegal to use it on HF under FCC jurisdiction. That is too bad, because ROS is definitely fun to use. 73 - Skip KH6TY w2xj wrote: If there were documentation on ROS then there would the possibility of investigating the problem further and maybe adding improvements. Part of the problem is that even if there is a large degree of spreading compared to the data rate, the channel is still quite narrow and a large portion of it subject to the same disturbances or interference. This is similar to what happens with the various commercial broadcast digital systems. The wider ones are much more robust, especially in regard to multipath, even though the data payload was increased in proportion. KH6TY wrote: Simon HB9DRV wrote: There's a lot more to Olivia than being multi-tone MFSK. I am aware of that, Simon. However, Olivia is currently the most popular digital mode other than PSK31 and RTTY, and the question was if ROS 16 baud was worth using twice the bandwidth of Olivia. We hoped that it would be, because on UHF, space is not at a premium as it is on HF, but ROS 16 baud, (the spread spectrum variation) at 2250 Hz width, was not even as good as SSB phone under the fast Doppler flutter conditions. So, as a choice of modes currently available, either MFSK16 (my personal preference on HF, but impractical on UHF due to the necessity to tune so accurately and have little or no drift) or Olivia, is a far better choice than ROS, and performs better. We would like nothing better if there were a mode that outperformed Olivia at equivalent typing speed, and could copy further into the noise than Olivia can, and is more tolerant to mis-tuning or drift than MFSK16, but so far ROS is not the one. As things stand, CW (decoded by ear) is currently the last mode standing, but it seems it must be possible to come up a mode that can beat CW under the typical conditions found on UHF. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Ros posts rebuttal of Olivia / Ros test results
Perhaps Tony, K2MO, can make some pathsim comparisons of ROS 8 baud with Olivia 32-1000. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/the-ros-numbers http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/the-ros-numbers Julian, G4ILO
