Thank you for your opinion, but need to be told to calm down as I am
not excited! The FCC rules are plain and the description of ROS by the
author is frequency hopping, whether within a phone signal bandwidth or
not, so that identifies it as spread spectrum. I am sure the FCC rules
were
I'm with you, Skip. While I appreciate the effort Jose put into this mode, I
won't be using it on HF.
The article quoted as justification of the legality of ROS was written by
the Italian developer of Chip64 who is not under the jurisdiction of the
FCC. The ARRL lists it only as a technical
I agree Dave, and Chip64 was abandoned over here on the same basis!
ROS looks like a fun mode, so I hope the FCC will allow it in the future.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Dave Wright wrote:
I'm with you, Skip. While I appreciate the effort Jose put into this
mode, I won't be using it on HF.
The
I feel really pity for you , my American HAM friends
73 de la5vna Steinar
On 21.02.2010 14:23, Dave Wright wrote:
I'm with you, Skip. While I appreciate the effort Jose put into this mode, I
won't be using it on HF.
The article quoted as justification of the legality of ROS was written by
Thank you, Steinar, but there have been serious attempts to dominate the
HF bands with wideband modes for what is basically a private system use,
and the FCC acted to protect the bands from that abuse, so while it is
sad for us right now, what the FCC has done in the past has protected
all
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote:
I agree Dave, and Chip64 was abandoned over here on the same basis!
I remember trying Chip64 without worrying about whether it was
legal. I got the impression it was abandoned just because it didn't
work very well compared to some
At 09:17 AM 2/21/2010, you wrote:
Thank you, Steinar, but there have been serious attempts to dominate the HF
bands with wideband modes for what is basically a private system use.
Do you think Skip that she will ever get it done?
I was told not long ago that they (she) was about to ask the
Hi Skip
But why is a mode like WINMOR allowed in US? I know it is not SS , but
you can't monitor the traffic.
If I have not totally misunderstood, that is one of the criteria for
using a digi mode on the band.
Just a thought , but it seems that some part of the FCC rules are more
important to
I agree, Steinar. The principle we all must follow on amateur
frequencies is that they are SHARED frequencies, which means used on a
first-come-first server basis and anyone accidentally transmitting on an
ongoing QSO must also be capable of moving when asked, as well as being
able to check if
Illegal immigration is also not allowed, but our government supports it. So
have fun with ROS.
Bob, AA8X
- Original Message -
From: Dave
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA
Hi Skip
Thanks for your answer . I do not disagree with you , but I do not think
you need an extremely hard regime to prevent anarchy.
You wrote One problem with traditional spread spectrum is that it is
designed to be hard to monitor, which therefore means hard to police,
What about the lack
Please keep comments related to amateur radio.
Andy K3UK
Owner.
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bob John a...@... wrote:
Illegal immigration is also not allowed, but our government supports it. So
have fun with ROS.
Bob, AA8X
Hi Steinar,
The FCC needs to address Winmor also, if we are to continue to keep our
shared bands open. However, Winmor is new, and it takes time to move a
government body, and complaints must also be filed by those harmed.
In the case of spread spectrum, as it pertains to ROS, spread spectrum
Hi Jim,
Actually CHIP worked ok, especially on the low bands. The Virginia NTS net used
this and still may. I think the issues with CHIP, and perhaps ROS, have more to
do with a strict definition of spread spectrum and frequency hopping then
the reality of the mode.
73,
Bill N9DSJ
--- In
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.
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, n9dsj n9...@... wrote:
Hi Jim,
Actually CHIP worked ok, especially on the low bands. The Virginia NTS net
used this and still may.
Worked OK, but I didn't think it worked as well as or better than
other modes that were more popular.
Jim W6JVE
Andy, I think you are incorrect. 50% of the 89 messages , so far, are
related to the legality in the USA issue. You are also preaching to the
choir, here. Most of the member agree that the regulations in the USA
should be as you suggest, and many representations have been made.
OK, now back
@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 23:03
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Jose (and all),
My two-cents worth:
Olivia is MFSK (or AMFSK), ROS is Spread Spectrum. MFSK is legal on HF, SS
is not.
It isn't about bandwidth or any of the other arguments
I have to agree with Vince's explanation of the rules but I am thinking that
we are over looking one rule here that I haven't seen brought up:
§97.309 RTTY and data emission codes:
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#309
=
(a) Where authorized by §97.305(c)
*De:* n9dsj n9...@comcast.net
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* sáb,20 febrero, 2010 03:53
*Asunto:* [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Is ROS actually a spread spectrum frequency hopping mode or more like
CHIP?
I have not seen
Andy wrote:
I find it rather amazing that 99% of the posts on ROS, and any
other new data mode, are related to its legality in the US. How
did you end up with such restrictive amateur licensing practices
that experimentation with any new ideas is almost regulated away?
-
From: Alan Barrow
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Andy wrote:
I find it rather amazing that 99% of the posts on ROS, and any
other new data mode, are related to its legality in the US
this legal discussion is trying to make, as they say, a mountain
out of a molehill.
Jim - K6JM
- Original Message -
From: Alan Barrow
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Hi,
One comment. A thing is a transceiver of Spread Spectrum (like military radios)
and other very different is to send digital data into an audio channel on SSB,
like PSK31, JT65, OLIVIA 1000, ROS...etc...are differents thinks. So, we must
know what we are reading.
--- In
One comment: It is not the same a Spread Spectrum Transceiver (like military
radios) that to send digital data into an audio channel on standard SSB
transceiver. They are different things. So, when we read Spread Spectrum is not
legal, first we must know what we are reading.
--- In
All,
If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier
suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed
carrier frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping
is frequency hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the carriers
are
KH6TY wrote:
All,
If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier
suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed
carrier frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping
is frequency hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the
The difference is the use of Frequency Hopping. In Olivia and the other
digital modes, frequency hopping is not used but the data is sent
redundantly over the width of the signal - MT63 is a good example.
From the ROS documentation:
ROS uses a Spread Spectrum technique known as
HI: I M calling 14080 usb, beam europe but no reply.
claudio-LU2VC
2010/2/19 Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@tiscali.co.uk
KH6TY wrote:
All,
If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier
suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed
carrier
We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal.
De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 19:19
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
All,
If we accept the fact that a SSB
: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
All,
If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier
suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed carrier
frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping is frequency
hopping (spread spectrum
Ok what's the bottom line?
Is it or is it not?
At this time my in box is overloaded with ROS subjects.
And rather reading them all or deleting all
Can someone just tell me?
John, W0JAB
Claudio wrote:
HI: I M calling 14080 usb, beam europe but no reply.
claudio-LU2VC
Sorry Claudio, things seemed to be getting quiet and I went to 30M using
JT65a.
Dave (G0DJA)
Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page
Unfortunately, its illegal below 420 MHz in the U.S.
73
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
From: John Becker, WØJAB
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 19:12 UTC
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Ok what's the bottom line
That's your opinion. It does not mean it's true.
De: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast.net
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 20:19
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Unfortunately, its illegal below 420 MHz
Do I hear the sound of a mass exodus to Canada? Or maybe back to Europe?
Simon Brown, HB9DRV
http://sdr-radio.com
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of John B. Stephensen
Unfortunately, its illegal below 420 MHz in the U.S.
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, February 19, 2010 2:30:01 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
That's your opinion. It does not mean it's true.
De: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast. net
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,19
please, please, no , not to Canada, they all argue too much hi hi
john
VE5MU
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Simon HB9DRV
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 1:37 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS
19, 2010 19:46 UTC
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Hello to all,
I found this on the ARRL Site:
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 62 ARLB062
From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT September 9, 1999
To all radio amateurs
SB QST ARL ARLB062
ARLB062 FCC
Message -
From: jose alberto nieto ros
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 19:30 UTC
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
That's your opinion. It does not mean it's true
want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal.
*De:* KH6TY kh...@comcast.net
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* vie,19 febrero, 2010 19:19
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
All,
If we
We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision, but our
FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are valid.
Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out.
Might this give some wider data on UHF? 20KHz? 50 KHz? Would it
be
Jose (and all),
My two-cents worth:
Olivia is MFSK (or AMFSK), ROS is Spread Spectrum. MFSK is legal on HF, SS is
not.
It isn't about bandwidth or any of the other arguments. Since ROS is Spread
Spectrum then it is not allowed on HF in areas regulated by the FCC under the
current
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
Â
We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal.
The only difference I see, Olivia does not say to
be spread spectrum, ROS does so :-) - but it's
exactly the same approach, as many other digital modes.
So, what is the exact spread spectrum
¿Olivia is only MFSK? Why there is so ignorant people in the world?
De: Dave hfradio...@gmail.com
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 23:03
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Jose (and all),
My two-cents worth
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@... wrote:
Does anyone have a definition of real spread spectrum? As I hate to
think what will happen when/if people with even less knowledge than I
have of what 'real' spread spectrum is get the idea that RIO is
something that
group to discuss this mode?
--
Dave - AF6AS
- Original Message -
From: vinceinwaukesha vi...@mulhollon.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:51 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill dave.g0
KH6TY wrote:
Jose,
We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision,
but our FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are
valid. Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out.
I hate to say this, as I'm sure I'll be called all
Dave wrote:
Jose (and all),
My two-cents worth:
Olivia is MFSK (or AMFSK), ROS is Spread Spectrum. MFSK is legal on HF, SS
is not.
It isn't about bandwidth or any of the other arguments. Since ROS is Spread
Spectrum then it is not allowed on HF in areas regulated by the FCC
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Dave wrote:
Jose (and all),
My two-cents worth:
Olivia is MFSK (or AMFSK), ROS is Spread Spectrum. MFSK is legal on HF, SS
is not.
It isn't about bandwidth or any
The answer is in Wikipedia for Spread Spectrum.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Marco IK1ODO wrote:
jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
Â
We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal.
The only difference I see, Olivia does not say to
be spread spectrum, ROS does so :-) - but it's
exactly
Dave Ackrill wrote:
but if we could get rid of many of the very loud European
stations, as well as the US ones,
So the plan would be to get rid of the loud European US stations, and
just leave the ( presumably not-loud?) UK ones on the air? :-)
Sounds workable to me, we could all dig out
Is ROS actually a spread spectrum frequency hopping mode or more like CHIP?
I have not seen any published modulation scheme/protocol specificaions so
guessing.
I certainly doubt the -35dB claim without even anecdotal evidence...otherwise
for EME I now have a 10dB path margin :)
73,
Bill
Yo only have to download the sound archive: The Man Of the Vara at 1 bauds
(-35 dBs) and tester.
The results speak for themselves
De: n9dsj n9...@comcast.net
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: sáb,20 febrero, 2010 03:53
Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: ROS
54 matches
Mail list logo
