Just keep the FCC out of this. They do will not deal with such issues. If
pushed, the out come will not be pretty. This was discussed at Dayton a few
years out. Basically we either self police or risk extinction.
On 7/12/10 5:00 PM, Rein A rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Dear
I'm experimenting again. I have a full time (24/7) HF Winklink-Winmor
server as previously announced, using several different bands during
the day. I have also configured an ALE 400 stations to operate the
same frequencies at the same times as the Winmor server. What does
this do ? Well, the
Why hasn't this subject died, like the mode itself? The developer has said he
won't develop it any more, so ROS (the mode) is dead.
The fact that someone wants to take over a website makes no difference unless
the source code for the mode is also handed over so that development can also
Hi Julian,
Why hasn't this subject died, like the mode itself? The developer has said he
won't develop it any more, so ROS (the mode) is dead.
The fact that someone wants to take over a website makes no difference unless
the source code for the mode is also handed over so that development can
The FCC never said anything that was a commitment. A staff member wrote a
very non committal letter basically hoping you would go away. This FCC stuff
is silly.
On 7/12/10 5:33 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote:
Unless there is spread spectrum in ROS you cannot use it. Of
someone else will
eventually develop an alternative, hopefully in an open and non-confrontational
manner.
Thats the whole point .. no one will, as no one can (in the usa) use it
under the catch 220 clause .. even the established ss modes cannot be used
now , after this fiasco ,
sorry, my typo. It's in 97.3. (b)(9)
- Original Message -
From: Lester Veenstra les...@veenstras.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:38:40 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
SS is
Hello W2XJ.
YOU are a man to my heart, You got it right on.
I have tried to make that point from the day it
happened.
Commitment - consequences far beyond some silly ham radio stuff
Commitees, study groups, legal advisors etc etc
Poor Agent, what ever his or hers number was!
73 Rein W6SZ
Julian
If Jose does not fix the generation of these spam messages, the method will
disappear.
If he fixes it, seems unlikely, the people who are using it now, will keep on
using it and it will grow.
I just wonder how many here in this group actually have used ROS,
or, are able to receive with
If one was to just disconnect from the net would the program
later try to post?
It seems that this is the main concern of many?
John, W0JAB
EM49lk
That, and the fact that if you believe the author's original description of ROS
that it uses spread spectrum, then it's not legal in the US on bands lower than
220. What's frustrating about the FCC rule is that ROS appears to use a
relatively narrow band form of frequency hopping spread
graham787 wrote:
So, if bits are added to the transmit waveform that are not performing a
function of helping to re-create an error free replication of the input data,
it meets my test as spread spectrum. If the symbols in the transmit waveform
cannot be predicted by the previous sequence
§ 97.3 Definitions.
(b) The definitions of technical symbols
used in this part are:
(9) UHF (ultra-high frequency). The
frequency range 300–3000 MHz.
--
§ 97.3 Definitions.
(c) The following terms are used in
this part to indicate
No . just block adif exe in a firewall and everything is fine
You can use the soft with or without email but without spotting is only
possible when using a firewall
The soft does not spot later . think you have no inet at home today.
tomorrow you get inet . if now the soft would spot later there
Hi Alan,
Why did you wait so long with contributing here?
Please explain.
++ In Feb of this year I quoted from the ARRL's Spread Spectrum Source book
page 5-2 ++
Spread Spectrum Fundamentals
SS systems employ radio frequency bandwidths that greatly exceed the bandwidth
necessary
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/13/consumer-reports-iphone-4_n_644107.html
73 Rein W6SZ
16:52 UTC
http://hamspots.net/ros/
73 Rein W6SZ
Rein,
I said I would not comment further on ROS, but look at it in
perspective. The author defined ROS as spread spectrum and produced a
two page document to that effect. He is the only one who knows for sure
if it is spread spectrum or not.
When it was posted that spread spectrum was not
I think that a lot of people are missing the point with ROS and Spread Spectrum
here in the US.
The author defined it as Spread Spectrum, only changing it to FSK144 (or
whatever) after being told that SS was not allowed below 1.25m in the US. The
FCC rules don't mention bandwidth in
sorry, the fine print is giving me fits. It's obviously 97.3 (c)(9).
I'm thinking another reason for the restrictions - SS is also a very good means
of encryption.
The previous rules on SS required use of a particular type of SS and the key
number was specified in the rule..
Probably in a
Hope that we found all email adresses from the spotters to inform them what
is going on in their pc ..
There's the generally accepted definition of SS, quoted below and referring to
bandwidths greatly exceeding what's necessary, and then there's the way the FCC
regs are written, which do not refer to that definition.
I think just about everyone, or maybe absolutely everyone who cares about the
rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Hi Alan,
Why did you wait so long with contributing here?
Please explain.
Hello Rein,
I've posted on this subject several times in the past with ITU IEEE
references as well.
It does seem to get lost in the noise at times.
It does not help at all that the ROS
bg...@comcast.net wrote:
I'm thinking another reason for the restrictions - SS is also a very
good means of encryption.
The previous rules on SS required use of a particular type of SS and
the key number was specified in the rule..
Probably in a pre 1999 ARRL rule book , if anyone really
and/or we can campaign to change them.
Amen
73 Rein W6SZ
Hello Alan,
Thank you much for your reply.
To tell the truth, I did not subscribe to this group in those
beginning days ( posted only om ROSMODEM )
It is so sad, that because of the noise, anti ROS biases, agenda's intelligent
exchanges are just about impossible, pro and con.
( IMHO )
Very simple change just add ³greater than 3 khz² to the existing rules.
On 7/13/10 3:28 PM, Dave Wright hfradio...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that a lot of people are missing the point with ROS and Spread
Spectrum here in the US.
The author defined it as Spread Spectrum, only
Spread Spectrum does not unto itself comprise a means of encrypting
information although encryption often accompanies it.
On 7/13/10 3:50 PM, Lester Veenstra les...@veenstras.com wrote:
The rules also make it clear that SS (or any other coding system) cannot be
used to hid the
It is generally accepted that 10 times bandwidth is the minimum necessary to
achieve enough processing gain to make the use of SS worthwhile.
On 7/13/10 3:55 PM, J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com wrote:
There's the generally accepted definition of SS, quoted below and referring to
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for responding in spite of everything!
The FCC then made their own analysis and concluded it was not FSK but truly
spread spectrum. This was communicated to us by the ARRL as is usually the
case.
( I know this may cost me my license if I have to believe some
contributors
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Barrow ml9...@... wrote:
- Simplistic bandwidth comparisons that do not factor in total
throughput. (IE: The effect of processor gain, FEC, etc). I don't think
ROS was stellar here, but the idea that a wider mode for X data rate is
worse than a
So 10 times is not a property of SS. Yes
73 Rein W6SZ
-Original Message-
From: W2XJ w...@w2xj.net
Sent: Jul 13, 2010 8:46 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
It is generally accepted that 10 times bandwidth is the minimum
OK does ROS encrypt or not?
I though if something was encrypted one would need some
means provided to a limited group, to allow and enable
them to decode the message. Do we have that in ROS?
We need the complete package receiving part included.
Does the transmitting station provide us with
I have learned much by following the ROS/USA Cluster F.
I see there is a plausible out for those of us wishing
to use the software.
It appears that all the sub-modes in the ROS software are
not SS. I am not that good an engineer to decide for myself
so here am asking all, which of the sub modes
This question of bandwidth for various modes and where to squeeze in the wider
modes is a good topic. Reminds me of the folks who really like enhanced
fidelity SSB (3.5 out to nearly 5 kHz), or AM. There are many bands at certain
times of day that have lots of space for those modes, but I'd
Very well stated, separate questions.
73 Rein W6SZ
-Original Message-
From: J. Moen j...@jwmoen.com
Sent: Jul 13, 2010 6:37 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
This question of bandwidth for various modes and where to
Delighted I am to find the 1998 version of 47CFR97.311 on the GPO website,
attached.
We are both maybe correct.
The FCC prescribed the method, the operator filled in the variables, which he
kept in a log and logged it every time s/he changed a variable.
- Original Message -
From:
bg...@comcast.net wrote:
[Attachment(s) #TopText from bg...@comcast.net included below]
Delighted I am to find the 1998 version of 47CFR97.311 on the GPO
website, attached.
We are both maybe correct.
The FCC prescribed the method, the operator filled in the variables,
which he kept in a
g4ilo wrote:
I don't know if that is a dig at one of the arguments I have made in the past,
Certainly not directed at you as an individual. I just feel that things
like sustained throughput which includes the effect of FEC processor
gain in the case of SS need to be included.
So it's not as
W2XJ wrote:
It is generally accepted that 10 times bandwidth is the minimum
necessary to achieve enough processing gain to make the use of SS
worthwhile.
Not only is it not worth doing, it also increased chances of
interference. I'm not aware of any weak signal DSSS using spreading
factors
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail.com
Sent: Jul 13, 2010 7:10 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digital modes other than ROS
What about them? They all work.
Jeff -- KE7ACY
- Original Message - From: Rein A
What about all
The definition of Spread Spectrum in 97.3(c)8 rests on the phrase using
bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions. This clearly lacks the technical
precision required
- for digital mode developers to know what techniques can and can not be
incorporated in modes used by US stations (e.g.
The creator of ROS does not present himself as a very nice or honest person
but I also believe there are cultural and language issues that add to the
problem. Before all this started several months ago, I did not believe the
initial presentation that it was really spread spectrum but rather
ROS does not work?
Is that your point?
And they are legal, Ros is Not
73 Rein W6SZ
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Moore tnetcen...@gmail.com
Sent: Jul 13, 2010 7:10 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digital modes other than ROS
What about them? They all
When a regulation is based on a vague phrase like using bandwidth-expansion
modulation emissions, the FCC should *expect* to hear from amateurs trying
to determine whether or not a mode is legal. There are certainly many
situations where amateurs can indeed be expected to sort it out
themselves;
Alan,
What happens, for example, if 100 DSSS stations are all on at the same
time, on the same beginning and ending frequencies, because everyone
assumes his presence at any one frequency is too short to be noticed?
Will they interfere with each other, or will they collectively interfere
On 7/13/2010 4:34 PM, W2XJ wrote:
That being said, Skip, you are also misrepresenting the situation by
stating the FCC made an analysis. Read the documentation and it is
clear they made a fairly non committal statement based on the
published material. The FCC does not like being involved
KH6TY wrote:
Alan,
What happens, for example, if 100 DSSS stations are all on at the same
time, on the same beginning and ending frequencies, because everyone
assumes his presence at any one frequency is too short to be noticed?
Will they interfere with each other, or will they
Noticed this statement in a report of an exchange with a custom
agent at FCC:
ROS is not Spread Spectrum because the 3khz HF standard channel is
maintained. Other modes like MT63, Olivia o[r] Contestia use similar
techniques.
I do not know who wrote it.
What is the problem with it?
73 Rein
49 matches
Mail list logo
