Skip if you call this a regulation, I agree with Garret. It is a misguided
one and a victim of unintended consequences. The whole discussion is stupid
and you, Skip, are too anal retentive. I work in broadcast and there are
many un-updated FCC regulations that the commission subsequently
The FCC has been very remise in keeping up with their own opinions compared
to the published rules. In fact if you go too far too the edge they will
issue at worst a cease and desist which you will comply with and add an
apology Based on that case you will apply for a modification of the rules.
Andy
You make a lot more sense than some of the children in this group who want
to just whine to the FCC and ARRL.
On 7/15/10 6:15 PM, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com wrote:
The comment in parenthesis in number 8 are the comments that reflect my view
of why this fine software
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
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
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
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
Why do you persist in getting the FCC involved? You are potentially
damaging the hobby as a whole. If one is qualified to hold a license the FCC
presumes ones ability to determine what operations are legal.
On 7/12/10 1:28 PM, KH6TY kh...@comcast.net wrote:
Lester,
The
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
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
For receive only there is also Perseus. It is about the same price as
the SDR-14. You can see the radio and read about some real world
performance from the following links:
http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/commrxvr/0122.html
http://www.nitehawk.com/sm5bsz/perseus/perseus.htm
But everybody has phone capability. That should be adequate.
From: Dave AA6YQ aa...@ambersoft.com
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:54:48 -0400
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part
97
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
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:54:48 -0400
The FCC has addressed the cryptographic aspects of spread spectrum. Only
certain relatively short PN codes are permitted for spread spectrum
operation in the currently authorized bands. It is relatively trivial to
cycle through those codes and receive the signal. The downside is that
the
I think the comment was broader based. Never go to the FCC for anything.
They want to be as hands off amateur radio as possible. They expect you
to interpret the rules and act accordingly, that is part of what your
qualification to hold a licensee is about.
vinceinwaukesha wrote:
I've
Well said Alan
I agree, going to the FCC anytime is marching the hobby one step closer to
the grave.
From: Alan Barrow ml9...@pinztrek.com
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:06:56 -0500
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on
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
in this forum when something is not clear.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
W2XJ wrote:
Skip
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
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
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
This is partially a language problem. A complete block diagram of both the
transmit and receive sides of the system would do wonders to clarify what
the system actually is. The partial receive diagram surely looked like MSK
to me.
From: jose alberto nieto ros nietoro...@yahoo.es
Reply-To:
Jose
If I am to understand you correctly, the coding algorithms are being held
privately. If that is the case, I will have to switch sides and question the
legality of it¹s use not only in the US but in many other parts of the world
as well. There is a general prohibition of the use of encryption
I think this disagreement will continue for some time. Me, I will be firing
up in the HF bands in the near future.
From: wd4kpd wd4...@suddenlink.net
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:15:50 -
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re:
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 Jose¹s part a better technical
description and some clarification would be very helpful to this end. I
think
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
Agreed, the more letters to the FCC the more problems for amateur radio.
From: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast.net
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:16:22 -
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
I am not going to wade back into part 97 for this, but I believe 5 khz audio
is beyond the scope of being communications quality. I know a number people
who have a lot of rebuilt broadcast audio gear and are also audiophiles,
many in the pro audio business and they are really in to this.
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
Skip, please see my other post on this topic. It is not that ROS on HF
is illegal it is just not specifically listed in the rules as are older
systems. There is a general catch all section that permits new modes
provided they adhere to general guidelines concerning bandwidth and
encryption.
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
That is part of the story but SS in that context is specifically defined
in 97.3.
KH6TY wrote:
§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
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
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
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
The problem is that if there are not enough of these radios (if built)
deployed world wide, the chance of one being in an impoverished country
and usable are quite small. At the end of the day in a dire emergency
CW, possibly AM and SSB are the only dependable modes. In places where
Hams are
True but their eggs are not in one basket. Also, DHS is in a better
position to use ALE compared to an ad hock arrangement. How much ALE
traffic has passed from Haiti? I know SSB is up but to an extremely
limited extent.
expeditionradio wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, w2xj w
This is a problem with Yahoo Groups and some other HTML based email systems.
If a person who is not fully computer savvy uses the HTML feature for the
group, there is no quoting. Only those who have real email accounts pass the
quoted material on without extra effort. I find this a frustration and
I think it is a bad idea. With the way licensing has already been
simplified, anyone with a technician license can easily just go get a
General.
From: Gary grwes...@yahoo.com
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:55:14 -
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
Look on the bottom of the unit. If it had factory installed windows, the
original license and key should be affixed to the unit.
Dave wrote:
Does anyone have a key for Windows 98 from an UNUSED installation?
My old laptop came with Win98, and thought I would resurrect it for use on
digital
I use rigexpert and it works well. The interface to the computer is USB.
Clif wrote:
I am contemplating getting into the digital end of ham radio. I have
been playing around with listening a little when the band allows. I
have been using Ham Radio Deluxe on a Pentium with Win XP and a
Modern filters that have been used in real equipment since the 80s can
be -1 db at 3100 and down 25 db at 3.5 k with negligible overshoot and
ripple in the 10ths of a DB. Chebyshev filters are not really the filter
of choice for this, elliptic tilers with some custom tweaks are a better
I would almost agree except for the 8 kHz wideband mode. That can easily
be 6 kHz and accommodate AM as used in HF communications. A wider
bandwidth just opens the door to more problems. I will file my comments
based on yours except I will suggest a maximum of 6 kilohertz.
John B. Stephensen
If you go to the SCS website, it clearly states that PACTORIII is
designed for commercial operation, especially maritime. They then have a
tanned rich German guy on the website giving a testimonial how the
system works from his yacht. If people want to tie up marine frequencies
with such a low
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you go to the SCS website, it clearly states that PACTORIII is
designed for commercial operation, especially maritime. They then
have a
tanned rich German guy on the website giving a testimonial
I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band
modes, there must be an investigation.
Phil Barnett wrote:
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:02:37 am expeditionradio wrote:
an attempt to prevent the
destruction of ham radio as we know it.
The same thing was said by spark
I think you should cite a creditable reference unless you can prove that
you were operating spark in the early 1900s.
expeditionradio wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Barry Garratt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
HUH!
They didn't want CW!
What mode were the spark gap operators
Fine, I agree lets kill them all. At the end of the day only narrow band
modes will work in a dire emergency.
expeditionradio wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band
modes, there must
Written in great spin mister style. I disagree with the unsubstantiated
claims made in this and other posts by Bonnie. I participate in various
digital modes but I know that they will not be a major factor in a true
emergency. Anyone who uses that ruse is just playing politics.
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
What about the Radio Hams that do not have the luxury of 100 meg
Internet that YOU ENJOY, or don't even have a 56k dial-up connection?
What about the ones who travel the world in a boat, in an RV, the ones
that are on holiday away from home? What about the ones who travel
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of W2XJ
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:53 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital
True, but it also depends on what the emergency is. Since you are in a
rural area you most likely have completely different needs. There are
many different modes possible. I think it is important to remember that
this thread started with discussion of automated robotic systems that
transmit
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
Sometimes through the night
when I cannot access any European PACTOR PMBOS because I do not have a
decent 80 meters antenna, I can connect to PMBOs in Canada or USA on
30 or 40 meters. How about that?
If it uses more than 500 hertz bandwidth it is not something I want on
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
First of all not many can afford a satellite phone, which is also not
amateur radio. A satellite phone plus connection fees are far more
expensive than a PACTOR MODEM. Second many do not even have the luxury
of a UHF link, nor are they near a town, so HF is playing a
. The requires getting
towers, beams, and perhaps SSB in place.
Rud Merriam K5RUD
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of W2XJ
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:15
The problem with PACTOR III is that it is downward compatible with
narrower modes PACTOR AND PACTOR II. The 500 kHz mode is compatible
with narrow modes in the CW sections. The wide mode is only compatible
with SSB. If you look at the SCS website, they promote PACTOR III as a
commercial mode
I will be responding in support of the petition. I do not believe these
digital modes will be effective in a true national emergency. I do
believe that they use a disproportionate amount of bandwidth for no real
advantage. Email at less than 2400 baud is not cutting edge technology.
In a real
?
- how effective will 2 meter SSB work between mobiles and base stations
using voice and digital modes compared to HF NVIS operation. Even with
extremely difficult terrain such as we have in this area.
73,
Rick, KV9U
W2XJ wrote:
I think anything that depends on interconnected
I think anything that depends on interconnected infrastructure is
vulnerable in an emergency. In a real emergency SSB AM FM and CW are the
only viable modes that you know will work. Everyone likes to tout
emergencies and homeland security to support whatever position they wish
to champion.
For us Amateurs there is 2390 to 2400 which is outside the ISM band. At
5.8 we have frequencies above and below as well as in the ISM band.
keyesbob wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want higher speeds, isn't it going to be much more practical
Packet is kind of pointless these days. You can sit in the shack and
work other modes while sending email much faster over the Internet. On
HF I think modes like PSK 31 are much more interesting in that you can
take advantage of direct communications in a narrow bandwidth. VHF and
UHF are
Very low bitrate algorithms exist now. There are a few that operate from
200 bps to 600 bps. The Navy has software called IVOX that gets in this
range. So you could transmit 16 QAM and hit the 100 HZ goal. The bigger
problem would be getting it to survive propagation and survive receiver
Yes it is
Steinar Aanesland wrote:
Is this the IVOX system:?
http://downloads.pf.itd.nrl.navy.mil/ivox/
LA5VNA Steinar
W2XJ skrev:
Very low bitrate algorithms exist now. There are a few that operate from
200 bps to 600 bps. The Navy has software called IVOX that gets
MFJ sells a MFJ-662 pocket repeater for $79.95. Basically it is a digital store
and forward box that records up to 32 seconds of audio and then re transmits it
once the receiver is squelched or after the 32 seconds. They claim it works
with
any rig including HTs and is legal in any band but
The problem is that if this is a store and forward repeater you will
accumulate too much time delay.
Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote:
Here is a related idea: We have seen with JT65a that sometimes when we
think the band is closed, it is just very poor instead. W1AW, which one
can sometimes
66 matches
Mail list logo
