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 technology is constrained in the degree of spectral efficiency possible.




graham787 wrote:
> Vojtech .... I think you  will find that SS could make monitoring the  bands 
> more  difficult as  SS  rings bells of the cryptographic sort in odd  places 
> .. and as these bell ringers are  still trying to decode enigma and  ultra 
> intercepts from ww2 ... meetings in forests and the  like ring any bells ? 
> (tnx)... perhaps it would be too  much to  handle ... On the  other hand .. 
> yes your  right multi channel  occupancy and  sub noise level communications 
> are  quite  possible  .. but  hams with such ability .. why,  can hear the  
> clanging of the  bells  from here ! ... I think psk31 and mfsk suffered a 
> similar cold reception  from this  side of the  pond , but that  was more  of 
> an embarrassment that  hams  had better station's with  more bells  and  
> whistles(piccolo?)  G .. 
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Vojtech" <bubn...@...> wrote:
>   
>> I did not follow the whole conversation. Anyway, spread spectrum has 
>> following benefits as far as I am known: 
>>
>> It allows more stations to use the spectrum. The trick is in spreading the 
>> signal by a sequence, which appears to be random. Many stations transmitting 
>> spread spectrum signals at various time and frequency offsets will all 
>> together resemble white noise. On the contrary, many conventional narrow 
>> band signals will approach white noise much slower. There is a classic 
>> article from Costas (of the PSK Costa's loop decoder algorithm) explaining 
>> why even DSB has theoretical benefits over SSB because it spreads the signal 
>> to higher bandwidth, which makes the total interference look more like white 
>> noise.
>>
>> The spreading in frequency makes the signal less sensitive to narrow band 
>> carriers, it makes it difficult to jam a signal by a single or couple of 
>> carriers.
>>
>> The other benefit is critical to military use. It is difficult to detect and 
>> if one does not know the spreading sequence, it is impossible to decode.
>>
>> Spread spectrum somehow contradicts the HAM radio philosophy. Spread 
>> spectrum to be useful mandates the software itself to identify and lock to 
>> the signal. It is impossible identify weak SS signal from white noise by 
>> ears. The operator will just enumerate the channels and the machine will do 
>> the rest. Higher amount of SS stations at the same frequency will increase 
>> background noise, so it will create an interference to let's say a CW 
>> operator. Therefore one would need to dedicate SS channels, otherwise there 
>> would be plenty of complaints from CW operators.
>>
>> I don't see a real benefit in running SS signal in just 2.5kHz SSB 
>> bandwidth. Olivia or MFSK will do better because they use the whole spectrum 
>> for itself, while SS on purpose leaves all the orthogonal spreading 
>> sequences to be used by other stations. For the same bandwidth, SS is 
>> designed to share frequency, classic multitone signals for best coding gain. 
>> That is a whole world of difference.
>>
>> SS would be very beneficial for beacon network, where all beacons share the 
>> same channel. This is what the GPS satellite network does indeed.
>>
>> SS may be used for single channel world wide chatting mode. One will be able 
>> to decode many signals at once with powerful computer.
>>
>> 73, Vojtech OK1IAK
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   

Reply via email to