Rud, if anywant know about ROS protocol is Jose Alberto Nieto Ros
________________________________ De: Rud Merriam <k5...@arrl.net> Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 22:25 Asunto: RE: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` Jose, If anyone knows about RF protocols it is John KD6OZH. - 73 - Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://mysticlakeso ftware.com/ -----Original Message----- >From: jose alberto nieto ros [mailto:nietorosdj@ yahoo.es] >Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 4:03 AM >To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` > > >I see you have not idea waht is the meaning of Spread spectrum. > >Spread spectrum reduce energy density. > > > > ________________________________ De: John B. Stephensen <kd6...@comcast. net> >Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com >Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 03:55 >Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` > > >Convolutional coding and Viterbi decoding may increase the occupied bandwidth >but they also decrease the amount of power required to communicate. In some >cases, like trellis-coded modulation, the bandwidth stays the same even though >the power required decreases by a factor of 2-4. Spread spectrum increases the >occupied bandwidth without the decrease in power. > >73, > >John >KD6OZH > >----- Original Message ----- >>From: W2XJ >>To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com >>Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 01:24 UTC >>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?` >> >> >>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. >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>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> >>> Reply-To: <digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com> >>> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:03:06 -0500 >>> To: <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> >>>> 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> <mailto:n5bza@ 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? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ From: KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net> >>Reply-To: <digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com> >>Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:53:53 -0500 >>To: <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: >> >
