Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

[W2XJ]

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.
Going to the FCC prior to such instance is like a whining kid running from
the sandbox. 


On 7/19/10 9:15 PM, "J. Moen"  wrote:

>  
>  
>  
>
> 
>  
> I agree that traditional SS spread across a very large portion of the band
> would be bad here in the US if a lot of stations were using it at once.  ROS,
> though we know it's not as good as several other modes, is not that kind of
> SS.  It has limited bandwidth, not much different from a number of other
> modes, and the ban against it doesn't make sense.
>  
> So I don't agree with the FCC approach to their regulations, where they ban
> how the intelligence is transmitted rather than the bandwidth the signal
> occupies.  
>  
> At the same time, I just can't believe some of my fellow countrymen who think
> it's ok to pick and choose which rules you'll follow.  If you don't like the
> rules against petty theft, do you just steal?
>  
> The right way is to campaign to get the rules you don't like changed, and
> until you do, follow them.
>  
>Jim - K6JM
>  
>>  
>> - Original Message -
>>  
>> From:  KH6TY 
>>  
>> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>>  
>> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:38 PM
>>  
>> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back  bigger and better !
>>  
>> 
>>
>>  
>> 
>> I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing  spread spectrum
>> above 222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!). A single  spread spectrum
>> signal on HF may go unnoticed by most stations, but what  happens if 100 (in
>> range) are on at the same time? The statistical chances  that where will be
>> QRM on your frequency are much higher, the more stations  that are on.
>> 
>> Our bands have very limited spectrum, and therefore it is  up to all of us to
>> cooperate in using the least bandwidth that will do the  job. Perhaps it has
>> been forgotten that five years ago, it was the practice  for a single
>> wideband Pactor-II mailbox to obliterate the entire PSK31 segment  of the 20m
>> band, displacing as many as 30 PSK31 stations. It was only after  much
>> discussion that the Pactor mailboxes agreed to move elsewhere. However  there
>> remains a Canadian Pactor-III automatic (not listening first) mailbox
>> station just below 14.070 that makes that area unusable by anyone else. The
>> FCC regulations in the US do not allow US Pactor-III mailboxes to operate
>> there, but, without consideration to others, the Canadian Pactor-III station
>> (just across the border) just dominates that frequency at will when it could
>> just as well operate in the automatic subbands with all the other Pactor-III
>> mailboxes. This is a good example of "not getting along" with your
>> neighbors!
>> 
>> The FCC rules may seem unfair, and I am sure SOME are  unfair, but there is a
>> process of amendment that insures fair access by all  parties, as best can be
>> done. So, if you do not agree with the FCC rules (that  PROTECT as well as
>> hinder), take the step of filing a petition to amend the  rules and make your
>> case, but do not disregard the current rules because you  think they are
>> unfair, because others may not think the same, and they may be  harmed by
>> your breaking the rules.
>> 
>> We all have to try to get along, and  the best way to do that is to observe
>> the local regulations, which have been  made for the benefit of the many and
>> not just for the benefit of the select  few.
>> 
>> If the regulations really deserve to be changed, make your case  and let the
>> process of public comment by ALL concerned parties determine what  should be
>> done. The FCC makes regulations only for the public benefit, and  only after
>> giving everyone a chance to comment.
>> 
>> 73, Skip  KH6TY
>  
>
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

[W2XJ]

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 licenses in
a manner contrary to their own rules. Look at the FCC definition of
translator and then tell me how under the letter of the law how AM and HD-2
and HD-3 stations can legally use that service. Regardless stations get
legal  permits every day.  Washington is a town of double and denial speak,
the rules mean next to nothing in many cases. What your communications
attorney can wring out of them is all that counts. It is whiners like you
that damage the system.  Ham radio is supposed to be self regulating which
means please do not disturb the FCC. I guess you still do  not get it.
People like you will kill this hobby.



On 7/19/10 8:56 PM, "KH6TY"  wrote:

>  
>  
>  
>
> 
>> > Just use common sense.. 
> Garrett / AA0OI
> 
> 
> "Common sense" says follow the regulations, because they were made for the
> benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to do what
> they wish without regard for others that want to use the bands.
> 
> Regulations are not "guide lines" - they are LAW for the benefit of all. Band
> plans are "guide lines", not regulations.
> 
> What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The regulations
> are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as many users to be
> treated as fairly as possible.
> 
> 73, Skip KH6TY
> 
> On 7/19/2010 8:42 PM, AA0OI wrote:
>>    
>>  
>>  
>> The rules and regulations are a "guide line" they were never meant to be
>> written on 2 stone tablets and prayed to on the seventh day..  if everyone
>> followed every little nit picking rule and regulation the world would come to
>> a stand still..
>>  
>> (the government told Wilbur and Orville that they were "forbidden" to fly)
>>  
>> I'm sure everyone drives the speed limit too..
>>  
>> Just use common sense.. 
>>  
>>  
>> Garrett / AA0OI
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> From: "John Becker, WØJAB" 
>>  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>>  Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM
>>  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
>>  
>>    
>>  
>> 
>> The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett?
>>  
>> John, W0JAB
>>  
>> At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote:
>>  
>>> >What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just
>>> back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life
>>> or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO
>>> FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about..
>>> Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to
>>> see if its been done..
>>> >And ANYONE who puts "Our Freedom" and "Absurd" in the same sentence needs
>>> to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you !
>>> > 
>>> >Garrett / AA0OI12c1104.jpg
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>  
>
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] New question

[W2XJ]

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"  wrote:

>  
>  
>  
>
> 
> The comment in parenthesis in number 8 are the comments that reflect my view
> of why this fine software and mode are not worth the hassle.
> 
> Andy K3UK
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Jim, N1SZ  wrote:
>>   
>>  
>>  
>>
>> 
>> Dave & All,
>>  
>> No, I was thinking the same thing.  Let¹s take a look at some significant
>> ³red flags² with the ROS software:
>>  
>> 1.)    Special code added in apparent anger to keep critics from using the
>> software (although reportedly removed in recent versions)
>> 
>> 2.)    Won¹t make the source code open for public inspection (not that it is
>> 100% required, but it would allay a lot of concerns about the software)
>> 
>> 3.)    Requires Gmail e-mail account and password ­ (giving such things away
>> would make any IT security professional lose their mind)Š is this still the
>> case?
>> 
>> 4.)    PDF literature provided by Jose had PDF file signatures and ³Authored
>> by² signature of another well know digital mode author in Jose¹s  own workŠ..
>> I wonder how that happened?
>> 
>> 5.)    Automatically sends messages to a hard coded list of serversŠ and
>> possibly other places?
>> 
>> 6.)    Apparently sends bogus callsigns and spots to various reflectors
>> 
>> 7.)    Gives users little if any control over the software¹s spotting to the
>> internet
>> 
>> 8.)    Now, after ³going away² for a short time, has a new version that if
>> you try and defeat the automatic spotting with a firewall, it automatically
>> shuts down. (Sounds like a child¹s temper tantrum to meŠ)
>> 
>>  
>> Well, I¹ve make it known that I¹ve been suspicious of Jose¹s intentions all
>> along, but if this all seems ³Normal² to you and doesn¹t bother youŠ. I say
>> good luck and press on with your use of ROS.  But from my limited
>> interactions in the world of IT security, it sure sets off a lot of alarms
>> and warning signs to me.
>>  
>> Jim
>> N1SZ
>>  
> 
>  
>
> 
> 

[digitalradio] Re: [digital radio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

[W2XJ]

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 something
written by someone with a bad grasp of  the English language.

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 in such matters. This is like the Dstar
controversy a few years back when an FCC official publicly told hams at
Dayton that if they were qualified to hold a license they should be able to
sort it out themselves. The commission will not do the thinking that hams
themselves should be doing for them selves. Please keep the sandbox fights
away from the FCC it will ultimately destroy the hobby. With the hunt for
more spectrum to sell be careful or there may not be any frequencies above
222 MHZ to even worry about spread spectrum.


On 7/13/10 3:23 PM, "KH6TY"  wrote:

>  
>  
>  
>
> 
> 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 legal below 222 Mhz, he
> conveniently (for his benefit) tried to redefine ROS as FSK, in an apparent
> attempt to change the FCC opinion, which originally was based on his own
> two-page declaration, which he wanted us to believe.
> 
> 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.
> 
> The author, if he would have disclosed his code, could have  proven whether or
> not  the  randomization is for spread spectrum purposes or for some other
> reason, but he steadfastly refused to disclose the code, which would either
> have resulted in it being OK for us to use, or prove it was truly FHSS.
> Perhaps he decided to try and bluff the FCC because it would be determined, on
> the basis of his code, to really be FHSS, in agreement with his first
> description, and in disagreement with the second description he wrote,
> obviously just to try to get approval.
> 
> It is just not reasonable to think that a person of his ability, as the author
> of the software, could make such a huge mistake in his first characterization
> of  
> ROS as spread spectrum and then completely revise the characterization as
> something else which he knew would be usable by US hams.
> 
> You can imagine how the FCC feels about that attempted deception, and to top
> it off, he posts a phoney statement of FCC approval besides! I seriously doubt
> that the FCC is going to want to revisit the question, since the author simply
> cannot be believed. I met Dan Henderson at a hamfest right after all this
> happened and he had been in contact the FCC, and opined that it was highly
> doubtful that any further reconsideration would be done.
> 
> The ONLY way for us to ever use ROS on HF is to petition the FCC to amend the
> rules to allow limited spread spectrum below 222 Mhz, citing enough good
> reasons why it will not harm existing operations of lesser bandwidth.
> 
> Instead of constantly arguing that the FCC made a mistake, or we should
> interpret the rules as we wish they were, I suggest that either a petition be
> filed, or the code released to prove the author's contention that it is not
> spread spectrum. Of course the submitted code would have to be recompiled and
> tested to prove it is really the original code, and another attempted
> deception by the author.
> 
> Understand that I am NOT "against" ROS, and never have been, even though I
> strongly dislike the author's behavior and suspect his motives. I would keep
> using it on HF if it were legal for me to do so. I do respect the FCC
> regulations, even those that I do not like, and follow them as best I can,
> because in the overall picture, they protect the weak from the strong for the
> benefit of everyone, until revised in a non-harmful way.
> 
> This will be my (final) final word on this subject, so please do not ask me to
> comment any further.
> 
> If you want to use ROS on HF, then enter a petition to get the regulations
> changed so you can, or work with someone else who will do that for you, and
> end this endless denigrating of the FCC, ARRL, and others who follow the
> regulations and depend upon ARRL interpretations of the FCC regulations for us
> all.
> 
> Signing off on ROS now -
> 
> 73,  Skip KH6TY
> 
> On 7/13/2010 2:23 PM, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>    
>>  
>> 
>> Hi Alan, 
>>  
>> Why did you wait so long with contributing here?
>> Please explain.
>>  
>> ++

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

[W2XJ]

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"  wrote:

>  
>  
>  
>
> 
>  
> 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
> FCC regs, thinks in this case they are inappropriate, but the fact is, they do
> not allow for narrow-band SS, even though it would cause no real harm.
>  
> The regs should be changed, but until they are, we in the US can not use SS
> below 220, or we can move to another country, or we can violate the regs,
> and/or we can campaign to change them.  But saying you don't agree with a law
> so you don't have to follow it is not the right way.
>  
>   Jim - K6JM
>  
>>  
>> - Original Message -
>>  
>> From:  rein...@ix.netcom.com
>>  
>> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>>  
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:23  AM
>>  
>> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random  data vs Spread Spectrum
>>  
>> 
>> 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
>> to convey the intelligence.
>> 
>> Bandwidths for SS  systems generally run from 10 to 100 times the information
>> rate.
>> 
>> etc  etc.
>> 
>> I got shouted out of the Group by addressing the use of ROS in the  US by the
>> experts on
>> SS.
>> 
>> 73 Rein W6SZ
>  
>
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions

[W2XJ]

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"  wrote:

>  
>  
>  
>
> 
> The rules also make it clear that SS (or any other coding system) cannot be
> used to hid the meaning.   They used to demand disclosure of the encoding
> system for compliance, but now, seem happy if the decode software (but not the
> source code) is freely available to those who want to listen.
>  
> 
>  
>  
> Lester B Veenstra  MØYCM K1YCM
> les...@veenstras.com 
> m0...@veenstras.com 
> k1...@veenstras.com 
>  
>  
> US Postal Address:
> PSC 45 Box 781
> APO AE 09468 USA
>  
> UK Postal Address:
> Dawn Cottage
> Norwood, Harrogate
> HG3 1SD, UK
>  
> Telephones:
> Office: +44-(0)1423-846-385
> Home: +44-(0)1943-880-963
> Guam Cell: +1-671-788-5654
> UK Cell:   +44-(0)7716-298-224
> US Cell:   +1-240-425-7335
> Jamaica:  +1-876-352-7504
>  
> This e-mail and any documents attached hereto contain confidential or
> privileged information. The information is intended to be for use only by
> the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the
> intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to
> the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution
> or use of the contents of this e-mail or any documents attached hereto is
> prohibited.
>  
> 
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of bg...@comcast.net
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:45 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions
>  
>   
> 
> 
> 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 pre 1999 ARRL rule book , if anyone really needed to look.
> There might exist a method of finding old versions of the CFR online, but I
> have not looked.
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Lester Veenstra" 
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:26:57 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions
> 
> 
>  
>  
>  
> § 97.3 Definitions.
> (b) The definitions of technical symbols
> used in this part are:
> (9) UHF (ultra-high frequency). The
> frequency range 300­3000 MHz.
>  
> --
> § 97.3 Definitions.
> (c) The following terms are used in
> this part to indicate emission types.
> Refer to § 2.201 of the FCC Rules, Emission,
> modulation and transmission characteristics,
> for information on emission
> type designators.
> (8) SS. Spread spectrum emissions
> using bandwidth-expansion modulation
> emissions having designators with A,
> C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol;
> X as the second symbol; X as the
> third symbol.
>  
>  
> § 2.201 Emission, modulation, and
> transmission characteristics.
> The following system of designating
> emission, modulation, and transmission
> characteristics shall be employed.
> (a) Emissions are designated according
> to their classification and their
> necessary bandwidth.
> (b) A minimum of three symbols are
> used to describe the basic characteristics
> of radio waves. Emissions are classified
> and symbolized according to the
> following characteristics:
> (1) First symbol‹type of modulation
> of the main character;
> (2) Second symbol‹nature of signal(
> s) modulating the main carrier;
> (3) Third symbol‹type of information
> to be transmitted.
>  
>  
> (c) First Symbol‹types of modulation
> of the main carrier:
> (2) Emission in which the main
> carrier is amplitude-modulated
> (including cases where sub-carriers
> are angle-modulated):.
> ‹Double-sideband ... A
> ‹Single-sideband, full carrier . H
> ‹Single-sideband, reduced or
> variable level carrier  R
> ‹Single-sideband, suppressed
> carrier .. J
> ‹Vestigial sideband  C
> (3) Emission in which the main
> carrier is angle-modulated:.
> ‹Frequency modulation . F
> ‹Phase modulation . G
> 
> NOTE: Whenever frequency modulation ŒŒF¹¹
> is indicated, Phase modulation ŒŒG¹¹ is also
> acceptable.
> (4) Emission in which the main
> carrier is amplitude and anglemodulated
> either simultaneously
> or in a pre-established sequence .. D
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Lester B Veenstra  MØYCM K1YCM
> les...@veenstras.com
> m0...@veenstras.com
> k1...@veenstras.com
>  
>  
> US Postal Address:
> PSC 45 Box 781
> APO AE 09468 USA
>  
> UK Postal Address:
> Dawn Cottage
> Norwood, Harrogate
> HG3 1SD, UK
>  
> Telephones:
> Office: +44-(0)1423-846-38

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

[W2XJ]

Very simple change just add ³greater than 3 khz² to the existing rules.


On 7/13/10 3:28 PM, "Dave Wright"  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 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 relationship to SS, they don't say that
> it "must employ bandwidths that greatly exceed the bandwidth necessary to
> convey the intelligence", nor do they reference any Wikipedia/ARRL/RSGB/ITU or
> other organization's definition.  They simply mention SS as not being allowed
> below 1.25m.  So, you can say that it is only 2.2kHz in bandwidth, but if it
> is spread spectrum within that 2.2kHz of bandwidth, it is illegal in the US
> below 1.2m.  It could be 500Hz in bandwidth, but if it uses SS, then it is
> illegal.
> 
> Is this the way it should be?  No.  Does it impede innovation and development
> of new mod es?  Yes.  However, the way the rule is written is what we have to
> follow.  Don't like it?  Then petition the FCC to modify part 97 to allow SS
> within a limited bandwidth (say 3 kHz).  As Skip has pointed out, there is a
> way to do this without mentioning ROS (or CHIP64/128) or any other SS mode.
> Quote the definition and petition for a modification, possibly with a
> bandwidth restriction, possibly without.  But, without changing the rule, the
> rest of the discussion is moot.
> 
> Dave
> K3DCW
> 
> 
> On Jul 13, 2010, at 2:23 PM, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> 
>>   
>> 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
>> to convey the intelligence.
>> 
>> Bandwidths for SS systems generally run from 10 to 100 times the information
>> rate.
>> 
>> etc etc.
>> 
>> I got shouted out of the Group by addressing the use of ROS in the US by the
>> experts on
>> SS.
> 
> 
> Dave
> K3DCW
> www.k3dcw.net 
> 
>  
>
> 
> 

Re: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?

[W2XJ]

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"  wrote:

>  
>  
>  
>
> 
> Unless there is spread spectrum in ROS you cannot use it. Of course, you can
> use the part that is not spread spectrum, but the FCC is not going to issue a
> blanket approval for ROS if any part of it is spread spectrum. They are not
> interested in issuing approvals for programs anyway. They just said that ROS
> was spread spectrum when asked and spread spectrum is not allowed under 222
> MHz, and had the ARRL communicate that.
> 
> As a ham in the US, you simply may not emit a spread spectrum signal on HF. It
> is your duty to ensure that you do not, however you go about it. It is not the
> FCC's job to tell you what program you can use. It is the ARRL's job to
> interpret the regulations if asked, which, in this case, it is illegal to use
> ROS 16 or 1 baud on HF, or any other variation that is FHSS.
> 
> 73, Skip KH6TY
> 
> On 7/12/2010 3:19 PM, Siegfried Jackstien wrote:
>>   
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> That would mean if you would implement ros or similar in a multimode soft
>> like multipsk or dm780 you would not be allowed to use it (the whole soft) in
>> us ??? I think if only a part of the soft is forbidden to use (on transmit)
>> all other modes can be used
>>  
>> If for instance rtty was forbidden in germany but no other mode I can use all
>> other modes in a given software
>>  
>> So if in us ros hf is forbidden (but not ros mf) you could use it in us Š
>> right??
>>  
>> Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong
>>  
>> Sigi
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>  
>
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?

[W2XJ]

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"  wrote:

>  
>  
>  
>
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Skip,
> 
> This is the second time you post this message about the FCC engineer
> 
> Why don't you tell us how we can get in touch with this engineer.
> 
> I would really like to hear that from that person and I would ask him
> whether the info was for public consumption or "on background"
> as used in the Media, "not authorized"  to talk about it because of
> this or that.
> 
> Where does this person work,  Washington DC, PA, Boston?
> 
> Why is this engineer's statement not in the public domain?
> 
> FCC is a Federal Agency , not some hidden laboratory in a basement somewhere,
> privately owned, concerned about IP or patents.
> 
> Always have to get back to this point Why is this not published
> by FCC on there information outlets?
> 
> They publish all the time as the Federal Communication Commission
> and not to a private person or a club of hobbyists  with all respect
> for the ARRL.
> 
> 73 Rein W6SZ
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com  ,
> KH6TY  wrote:
>> >
>> > Andy,
>> > 
>> > I have been told by a FCC engineer, part of the evaluation group at the
>> > FCC, whom I will not name, that ROS 16 baud and 1 baud has been
>> > evaluated in the lab and "is" spread-spectrum and therefore illegal on
>> > HF, not only because the author first said it was spread spectrum and
>> > then changed his story.
>> > 
>> > Anyone with DigiPan or any other PSK31 program with a waterfall can
>> > verify that the frequency spreading is random and not a function of the
>> > data, which is the signature of spread-spectrum.
>> > 
>> > Just because someone "feels" it is not spread spectrum does not excuse
>> > them from following the regulations and those who do not risk the chance
>> > of FCC action against them once someone files a complaint.
>> > 
>> > There is no reason for the FCC to "reconsider" their decision, since it
>> > is based on analysis as well as the author's declaration. What can be
>> > done is to submit a petition to the FCC to allow limited bandwidth
>> > spread spectrum on HF by showing it is not harmful to other users of the
>> > bands. The instructions for submitting a petition are available on the
>> > FCC website.
>> > 
>> > Radio amateurs are responsible for following the regulations, not just
>> > interpreting them as they see fit.
>> > 
>> > ROS is legal above 222 Mhz, so freely use it there if you wish. It is
>> > probably really good for EME.
>> > 
>> > 73, Skip KH6TY
>> > 
>> > On 7/12/2010 6:55 AM, Andy obrien wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > For those USA hams that are using ROS on HF, I assume that by using
>>> > > it...they feel it is not spread spectrum and thus should be legal.  Is
>>> > > there any movement towards petitioning the FCC to reconsider the
>>> > > unofficial comments by them and obtaining statements that it is legal
>>> > > ?  Or has everyone agreed it IS spread spectrum and given up on it
>>> > > becoming legal in the USA ?
>>> > > Andy K3UK
>>> > >
>>> > >
>> >
> 
>  
>
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum

[W2XJ]

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"  wrote:

>  
>  
>  
>
> 
> Lester, 
> The "inventor" has shown over and over that he is not to be trusted, and so
> his block diagram would not be believed either. I suggested months ago to him
> to just send his code in confidence to the FCC, which they would keep private,
> and be done with it. He replied that, arrogantly, "The FCC would have to
> purchase the code from him". To me, that suggests that he is unwilling to
> disclose the code because it would prove once and for all that it was spread
> spectrum, and instead, he tried to bluff his way to approval, even by changing
> his original description of the code as spread spectrum, which obviously did
> not work.
> 
> ROS's best advantage, IMHO, is for EME, and it is legal there for US hams for
> 432 and 1296 EME. I only wish it were legal on 2M also and I could use it for
> EME on that band.
> 
> Yes, it should be open-source, and that would end the discussion, but he has
> (for perhaps devious or commercial) personal reasons for refusing to do so.
> 
> That is just not going to happen, so let's end the discussion on that note and
> get on the air instead!
> 
> 73, Skip KH6TY
> 
> On 7/12/2010 1:14 PM, Lester Veenstra wrote:
>>   
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Skip:
>>  
>>  Spectral analysis cannot differentiate between a high rate FEC operating
>> after, as it invariably must, a randomizer, and a true spread spectrum
>> system.  And a spread spectrum system does not need to employ frequency
>> hopping. And a signal that ³frequency hops² is not necessarily a spread
>> spectrum signal.   I refer you to the old favorite of the UK Diplomatic
>> service, the Piccolo.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> As I advocated in an earlier post, the way to end this endless discussion
>> would be for the ³inventor² to disclose the block diagram of the various
>> steps in his encoding/modulation system. In fact I was rash enough to suggest
>> that IMHO, all of these systems being played with by hams,  should be open
>> sourced, so that, the end user can have some confidence in what he is using,
>> and the state of the art can be mutually advanced.  We started with this
>> philosophy with the TTL MAINLINER-II, and continue it today with many of the
>> DSPR systems out there, including the primary commercial company.  Their
>> disclosure does not seem to have slowed them down at all.
>>  
>>  Thanks 73
>>  
>>  Les
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>
>  
>
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] ROS on UHF]]

[w2xj]

Yes but at UHF there seems to not be enough spread to tolerate the 
Doppler shift. If the frequencies were further apart, and were received 
through a wider window, the Doppler would be tolerated better but at 
what penalty in noise?   I can think of a few ways to solve your problem 
but not with existing  sound card modes.




KH6TY wrote:
> Based on observations of the tones on the waterfall on the air, 
> compared to observing them locally, and hearing the raucous tones 
> compared to bell-like quality locally, my guess is that perhaps the 
> modulation is disturbed or the tones moved in frequency far enough so 
> there is no decoding. If we try to use DominoEx, which is very 
> tolerant to drift, the Doppler distortion also stops DominoEx from 
> decoding. MFSK16 is not usable, because the Doppler shift is so great 
> that tuning is lost and the AFC cannot follow it. It is not unusual to 
> see a slow Doppler shift of 50 Hz to 100 Hz on 70cm, but the most 
> severe problem is a fast Doppler distortion which is present almost 
> all the time and destroys the integrity of the carriers, at least as 
> it is possible to hear and see on the waterfall.
>
> I can't compare ROS on HF to UHF, except for monitoring, as it is 
> illegal to transmit on HF, but monitoring on HF does not show the same 
> problems. I have seen ROS signals start printing garbage on HF in a 
> QSB fade and then recover when the fade ends, but there is no 
> published specification for the minimum S/N that the 16 baud variation 
> is supposed to work at. Even when there is no QRM, I have seen 
> decoding of ROS 16 baud, 2250 Hz width, stop at metrics of -8 dB. If 
> this corresponds to S/N, then the 16 baud version does not compare 
> favorably with Olivia or MFSK16, which can work 4 dB to 5 dB lower.
>
> My guess is that the problem is not because the spreading in ROS is 
> too little, but on UHF, that the tones themselves are disturbed in a 
> way that makes ROS just print garbage when Olivia is still printing 
> quite well. ROS stopped decoding today even when SSB phone was about 
> Q4 copy, and under those 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:
>>  
>>
>>
>> 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 it subject to the same disturbances or interference. This is
>> similar to what happens with the various commercial broadcast digital
>> systems. The wider ones are much more robust, especially in regard to
>> multipath, even though the data payload was increased in proportion.
>>
>> KH6TY wrote:
>> > > Simon HB9DRV wrote: There's a lot more to Olivia than being
>> > multi-tone MFSK.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > I am aware of that, Simon.
>> >
>> > However, Olivia is currently the most popular digital mode other than
>> > PSK31 and RTTY, and the question was if ROS 16 baud was worth using
>> > twice the bandwidth of Olivia. We hoped that it would be, because on
>> > UHF, space is not at a premium as it is on HF, but ROS 16 baud, (the
>> > spread spectrum variation) at 2250 Hz width, was not even as good as
>> > SSB phone under the fast Doppler flutter conditions. So, as a choice
>> > of modes currently available, either MFSK16 (my personal preference on
>> > HF, but impractical on UHF due to the necessity to tune so accurately
>> > and have little or no drift) or Olivia, is a far better choice than
>> > ROS, and performs better.
>> >
>> > We would like nothing better if there were a mode that outperformed
>> > Olivia at equivalent typing speed, and could copy further into the
>> > noise than Olivia can, and is more tolerant to mis-tuning or drift
>> > than MFSK16, but so far ROS is not the one. As things stand, CW
>> > (decoded by ear) is currently the "last mode standing", but it seems
>> > it must be possible to come up a mode that can beat CW under the
>> > typical conditions found on UHF.
>> >
>> > 73 - Skip KH6TY
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: [digitalradio] ROS on UHF]

[w2xj]

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 it subject to the same disturbances or interference. This is 
similar to what happens with the various commercial broadcast digital 
systems. The wider ones are much more robust, especially in regard to 
multipath, even though the data payload was increased in proportion.


KH6TY wrote:
> > Simon HB9DRV wrote: There's a lot more to Olivia than being 
> multi-tone MFSK.
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
> I am aware of that, Simon.
>
> However, Olivia is currently the most popular digital mode other than 
> PSK31 and RTTY, and the question was if ROS 16 baud was worth using 
> twice the bandwidth of Olivia. We hoped that it would be, because on 
> UHF, space is not at a premium as it is on HF, but ROS 16 baud, (the 
> spread spectrum variation) at 2250 Hz width, was not even as good as 
> SSB phone under the fast Doppler flutter conditions. So, as a choice 
> of modes currently available, either MFSK16 (my personal preference on 
> HF, but impractical on UHF due to the necessity to tune so accurately 
> and have little or no drift) or Olivia, is a far better choice than 
> ROS, and performs better.
>
> We would like nothing better if there were a mode that outperformed 
> Olivia at equivalent typing speed, and could copy further into the 
> noise than Olivia can, and is more tolerant to mis-tuning or drift 
> than MFSK16, but so far ROS is not the one. As things stand, CW 
> (decoded by ear) is currently the "last mode standing", but it seems 
> it must be possible to come up a mode that can beat CW under the 
> typical conditions found on UHF.
>
> 73 - Skip KH6TY
>
>
>>
>>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Not Tech Digital, But Then Maybe?

[w2xj]

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
http://www.nitehawk.com/sm5bsz/digdynam/practical.htm

I see this as more than an either or. Softrock and Genesis are more 
entry level kits, each with their own following.  Then there is 
Flexradio. The Flex3000 is small enough to be portable and the 1500 
comes in at a pretty decent price. But at the end of the day, what are 
you planning on accomplishing? I like the Perseus or the SDR-IP for 
receive and experimentation. Overall I like the Flex but for low cost 
backpacking and QRP both Softrock and Genesis are attractive. You can 
join the various Yahoo groups if you have not already to get a better 
feel for these different technologies.

Gmail - Kevin, Natalia, Stacey & Rochelle wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am posting this question in this group as I know their are a few of you 
> using SDR modules.
> I am looking at getting one soon to use in my shack (bit hard for portable), 
> but I don't know which way to go?
>
> I have looked at the following few modules, SDR-IQ, Softrock, Flexradio and 
> Genesis to name a few.
> I am impressed with the SDR-IQ, but it is quite pricey and it's only RX. I 
> would like to be able to RX/TX. I could however use my Kenwood for the TX 
> side of things.
> I did look at the SDR-14 but at twice the price over the SDR-IQ without much 
> difference, won't be going that way.
>
> Anyone got their thoughts, please email me directly if you do not wish to 
> clog up the group. Andy, I'll try you on Skype again later (we keep missing 
> each other).
>
>  
> Get Skype and call me for free.
>
> Kevin, ZL1KFM
>   





Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page 
http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
Suggesting calling frequencies: Modes <500Hz 3583,7073,14073,18103, 
21073,24923, 28123 .  Wider modes e.g. Olivia 32/1000, ROS16, ALE: 14109.7088.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97

[W2XJ]

True but I was thinking of wideband modes in phone segments. In narrowband
segments CW is still an option as it can be decoded by many digi programs.



From: KH6TY 
Reply-To: 
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:01:57 -0500
To: 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part
97

 
 
 
   

But under FCC regulations, phone and data must not operate in the same
space, so how could phone be used? On the other hand, CW is allowed
everywhere. Too bad it is no longer a requirement for a license, as it used
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 
>  Reply-To: 
>  Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:54:48 -0400
>  To: 
>  Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
>  
>  Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the
> capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his
> transceiver ­ e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the
> ³universal QRL² signal.
>  
>73,
>  
> Dave, 8P9RY
>  
>  
>  From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Warren Moxley
>  Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM
>  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
>   
>   
>  
>  
>   Skip,
>  
>  "since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference."
>  
>  This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35
> years and have heard there is "no way" a lot of times only to come up with a
> solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team.
>  
>  It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using
> an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard.
> Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using
> it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be
> put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for
> the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is
> already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use.
>  
>  Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers
> on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution.
> Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am
> ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may
> or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we
> should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the
> real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from
> here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the
> better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve.
>  
>  Warren - K5WGM
>  
>  --- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY  wrote:
>  From: KH6TY 
>  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
>  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>  Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM  Trevor,
>  
>  The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common
> mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering
> digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission
> on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the
> user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The
> problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were
> written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was
> required to know CW.
>  
>  I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem
> with solely "regulation by bandwidth" is NOT a solution, especially between
> phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve
> mutual interference. This is why the ARRL "regulation by bandwidth" petition
> to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There
> have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries
> (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work
> here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained
> at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining,
> and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital mod

Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97

[W2XJ]

But everybody has phone capability. That should be adequate.



From: Dave AA6YQ 
Reply-To: 
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:54:48 -0400
To: 
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part
97

 
 
 
   

Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the
capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to
his transceiver ­ e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the
³universal QRL² signal.
 
   73,
 
    Dave, 8P9RY
 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Warren Moxley
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part
97
 
  

 
  Skip,
 
 "since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual
interference."
 
 This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over
35 years and have heard there is "no way" a lot of times only to come up
with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team.
 
 It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by
using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto
standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently
we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more
information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and
some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY,
this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded
for this use.
 
 Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem
solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a
solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the
hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID
expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet
expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve
a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as
start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and
who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem
to solve.
 
 Warren - K5WGM
 
 --- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY  wrote:
 From: KH6TY 
 Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part
97
 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM  Trevor,
 
 The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a
common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an
interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and
accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation
is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the
user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators,
but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only
phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW.
 
 I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem
with solely "regulation by bandwidth" is NOT a solution, especially between
phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve
mutual interference. This is why the ARRL "regulation by bandwidth" petition
to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There
have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries
(perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work
here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been
maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be
declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to
use, but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone.
Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum
inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a
future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need and
benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to restricted by
bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be a "common language" for
frequency use mitigation.
73 - Skip KH6TY
 
 
 Trevor . wrote:  Following the recent discussions about the US license
restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org

 
 On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page
June 1976) says 
 
 "Rather than further complicate the present rules," the Commission said,
"with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners' requests, we are
herein proposing to delete all references to specific emission types in Part
97 of the Rules. "We propose, instead," the Commission continued, "to
replace the present provisions with limitations on the permissible bandwidth
which an amateur signal may occupy in the 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: What is SS and what it is good for to HAMs, was: ARRL/FCC Announcement

[w2xj]

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"  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
>>
>> 
>
>
>
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Anecdotes about FCC inadvertent hostility toward ham radio digital modes?

[w2xj]

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 recently read several digital ops repeatedly ominously state hams should 
> never ask the FCC about digital issues because the FCCs answer might be 
> extremely bad for the hobby, aka, never tickle a sleeping dragon.
>
> This sounds new to me, outside of the digital world, hams constantly pester 
> the FCC with all kinds of imaginative questions and proposals.  Digital is 
> new to me (well, relatively new, for a 3rd gen ham for twenty years, anyway). 
>  I hear it repeated over and over from some digital hams.  So that indicates 
> there might be a bad story from ye olden days of ham digital regulation.
>
> All I'm asking for is something like "back in '67 after a perfectly innocent 
> question about maritime mobile RTTY onair identification, the horrible end 
> result was radioFAX transmission was temporarily banned because of lack of CW 
> ids".  I'm only bugging you all, because I have no idea what to google for, 
> once I have a couple keywords I can find the details of the "event" on my own.
>
> 73 de N9NFB
>
>
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)

[W2XJ]

Well said Alan

I agree, going to the FCC anytime is marching the hobby one step closer to
the grave.



From: Alan Barrow 
Reply-To: 
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:06:56 -0500
To: 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS
(K3UK Sked Pages)

 
 
 
   

pd4u_dares wrote:
> ... considering legal action ... has an apparent plan ... may have
understandably frustrated Jose
>   

I really have mixed feelings about how this all played out as well.
While I don't agree with ban lists, I can see where the software author
could get very frustrated at what could be perceived as an attempt to
get a new mode banned.

My observation is that when an "arms length" ham goes to the ARRL/FCC
with an "is this legal" it nearly always results in a "at first glance
we do not think so". Historically, this is nearly always done by people
opposed to the new mode, and looking to see it banned.

Having seen this happen more than once, and having detailed information
on two of those cases, it's the wrong way to handle such a query, even
if done in good faith.

And like most times this occurs, with more detail, and maybe a bit more
objective presentation (like making it clear it's ssb bandwidth with an
audio sample), the FCC Input is reversed. (it was never a decision, just
an opinion based on the facts at hand)

In this particular case it's made much worse by the sparse, poor wording
in the fcc regs.

The issue was not that ROS technically used SS type techniques. Or even
could clearly be called SS using the ITU definition.

Instead, the core issue was: "did ROS behave like traditional SS in a
way that would cause interference and thus was banned under 220 mhz. "
And the answer to that is clearly no. It behaves like many other
AFSK'ish modes that use an SSB bandwidth. Other legal modes use
randomization in a way that by very strict interpretation could be
called SS. Had it hopped across 100khz, using vco rf stages, it'd
clearly be illegal.

Personally, I think it's unfair to compare to the other authors, as they
have never had such a (real or perceived) attack on their software, the
product of many hours of work. And we had cross language/culture issues
at play here as well. This was not an "I don't like it", or "it does not
work well", all authors have to deal with that. It was a "we don't think
it should be used" debate. And much more personal and at risk.

So my view is that we should all learn from this, put the swords back in
the scabbards, and not alienate someone who took the time to create
something innovative, and made it available for use. For free.

And think real hard next time before calling the FCC. Ham radio was the
net loser in this episode. We are already viewed as squabbling children
at the FCC, and this type of episode just reinforces that view of
amateur radio.

Sincerely,

Alan
km4ba
 
   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling

[W2XJ]

I still do not think they will get involved. This is kindergarten politics
and bad for our hobby.





From: KH6TY 
Reply-To: 
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:09:57 -0500
To: 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when
idling

 
 
 
   

Self-regulating means that we police ourselves and obey the rules on the
honor system. It also might mean the Official Observers assist in
regulations. "Regulating" means following rules, not interpreting them for
our own benefit, but as accurately as possible.

If you were the FCC and had received a seven page document describing ROS as
FHSS, and then later received a two page "technical description" that was
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, but that ROS had not changed, would you believe the
first document or the second, knowing that the mode may really be FHSS
butis  now called something else in order to achieve legal status?

Under these circumstances, I DO think they will put enough effort into this
to find the TRUTH. It is clear that they can no longer just believe the
author, since his story has done a 180 degree shift, so I would think they
feel they are now obligated to make tests to determine if the mode really is
FHSS or FSK144, or something else, since they no longer can trust what the
author says. The change is so enormous that it is not just a matter of
having left something out the first time.

My guess is the FCC will, but from the spectral 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 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 to support it.
> I can not see them using valuable engineering time on this.
>  
> What the FCC stated was that based on the documentation, the developer claimed
> it was SS but it was up to the individual amateur to make the determination.
> They made no ruling or determination, just a carefully worded opinion of a
> staff member.  Part of holding a license is being able to determine which
> operation is legal. The same thing came up over digital repeaters a few years
> ago. 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 it out for themselves.  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> From: KH6TY 
>  Reply-To: 
>  Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:58:58 -0500
>  To: 
>  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when
> idling
>  
>  
>  
>  
>    
>  
> Thanks for the clarification, Rein.
>  
> That agrees with what Steinar sees, and with the Wikipedia discussion, which
> says in part, "Most pseudorandom generator algorithms produce sequences which
> are uniformly distributed  by any
> of several tests. It is an open question, and one central to the theory and
> practice of cryptography  , whether there is any way to
> distinguish the output of a high-quality PRNG from a truly random sequence
> without knowing the algorithm(s) used and the state with which it was
> initialized."
>  
> The differentiating factor in FHSS is apparently whether or not the data is
> superimposed on the carriers, or if the carrier frequencies are determined by
> the data. I cannot see that happing in ROS, and I can in all the FSK modes,
> but maybe I just do not know how to find it for sure. I guess the FCC
> engineers will probably figure out if ROS is actually spread spectrum as
> originally claimed, or FSK with FEC as now claimed.
>  
> It is just hard to imagine that someone as intelligent and capable as Jose
> could make such a huge mistake after writing seven pages of text and diagrams
> describing the mode the first time! No wonder the FCC believed him! Will they
> now believe him, or will they believe that the so-called "technical
> description" now on the ROS website is just an attempt to get ROS considered
> legal on HF? Probably they will believe only their own tests now, so we will
> have to wait for those.
>  
> The FCC does not care about the "mode", or what it is called, but only what is
> transmitted on the air.
> 73 - Skip KH6TY
>  
>  
>  
> pa0r wrote: 
>  
>  
>>   
>>  
>>  
>> SS uses pseudorandom codes to wag the carrier(s).
>> EVERY pseudorandom code is repetitive, the length may vary.
>>  
>> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling

[W2XJ]

A good portion of the FCC rules is almost cut and paste from ITU standards
which apply worldwide.



From: "John B. Stephensen" 
Reply-To: 
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 01:02:44 -
To: 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when
idling

 
 
 
   

 
The problem is that the FCC regulations are overly complex and people need a
specialized engineering background to interpret some of them. 99% of the
licensees probably can't interpret every word in the regulations so they ask
for help 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 it out for
>> > themselves.  
> 
> That's what the old Radio Communication Agency used to do in the UK as  well.
> 
> The problem then was that some people thought they had the  authority to
> tell other Radio Amateurs what they could, and could not,  do.
 
   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling

[W2XJ]

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 to support
it. I can not see them using valuable engineering time on this.

What the FCC stated was that based on the documentation, the developer
claimed it was SS but it was up to the individual amateur to make the
determination. They made no ruling or determination, just a carefully worded
opinion of a staff member.  Part of holding a license is being able to
determine which operation is legal. The same thing came up over digital
repeaters a few years ago. 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 it out for
themselves.  



From: KH6TY 
Reply-To: 
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:58:58 -0500
To: 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: There is a pattern in the ROS signal when
idling

 
 
 
   

Thanks for the clarification, Rein.

That agrees with what Steinar sees, and with the Wikipedia discussion, which
says in part, "Most pseudorandom generator algorithms produce sequences
which are uniformly distributed 
by any of several tests. It is an open question, and one central to the
theory and practice of cryptography  , whether there is
any way to distinguish the output of a high-quality PRNG from a truly random
sequence without knowing the algorithm(s) used and the state with which it
was initialized."

The differentiating factor in FHSS is apparently whether or not the data is
superimposed on the carriers, or if the carrier frequencies are determined
by the data. I cannot see that happing in ROS, and I can in all the FSK
modes, but maybe I just do not know how to find it for sure. I guess the FCC
engineers will probably figure out if ROS is actually spread spectrum as
originally claimed, or FSK with FEC as now claimed.

It is just hard to imagine that someone as intelligent and capable as Jose
could make such a huge mistake after writing seven pages of text and
diagrams describing the mode the first time! No wonder the FCC believed him!
Will they now believe him, or will they believe that the so-called
"technical description" now on the ROS website is just an attempt to get ROS
considered legal on HF? Probably they will believe only their own tests now,
so we will have to wait for those.

The FCC does not care about the "mode", or what it is called, but only what
is transmitted on the air.
73 - Skip KH6TY



pa0r wrote: 
>   
>  
> 
> SS uses pseudorandom codes to wag the carrier(s).
> EVERY pseudorandom code is repetitive, the length may vary.
>  
> 73,
>  
> Rein PA0R
>  
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com  ,
> KH6TY    wrote:
>> >
>> > That's a good analysis, Steinar. Is it possible to see if the pattern
>> > changes when sending data? That is all the FCC is concerned about. The
>> > pattern has to change when sending data and not just remain the same to
>> > exclude it from being FHSS.
>> > 
>> > 73 - Skip KH6TY
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Steinar Aanesland wrote:
>>> > > 
>>> > > [Attachment(s) <#TopText> from Steinar Aanesland included below]
>>> > >
>>> > > Hi Skip
>>> > >
>>> > > I have been monitoring a ROS idling over time using DL4YHF's Spectrum
>>> > > Lab. Here is the results.You can clearly see a pattern
>>> > >
>>> > > 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
>>> > >
>>> > > On 26.02.2010 12:29, KH6TY wrote:
 > > > Alan,
 > > >
 > > > Of course, the FCC rules on SS are outdated and ROS should be allowed
 > > > due to its narrow spreading range, but the road to success is not to
 > > > just rename a spread spectrum modem to something else and try to fool
 > > > the FCC. This is a sure way to lose the battle. The genie is already
 > > > out of the bottle!
 > > >
 > > > Instead, just petition the FCC for a waiver, or amendment, to the
 > > > regulations that are a problem, to allow FHSS as long as the
 spreading
 > > > does not exceed 3000 Hz and the signal is capable of being monitored
 > > > by third parties. Do this, and there is not a problem anymore. But,
do
 > > > not try to disguise the fact that FHSS is being used by calling it
 > > > something else, as that undermines the credibilty of the author of
the
 > > > mode and will make the FCC even more determined not to it on HF/VHF.
 > > >
 > > > It looks to me that the tone frequencies are clearly being generated
 > > > independently from the data and then the data applied to the randomly
 > > > generated frequency. There is NO pattern to ROS like there is to FSK
 > > > modes, even to 32 tone FSK (Olivia 32-1000) or to 64 tone FSK
 > > > (MT63-2000). This is a signature of FHSS.
 > > >
 >

Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`

[W2XJ]

Not true  according to Shannon. Using an independent code is a means to an
end in the digital domain but is not an absolute as far a the theory goes.
This is an example why we need to keep lawyers and government as far away
from the hobby as possible.



From: KH6TY 
Reply-To: 
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:00:49 -0500
To: 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus?  Is ROS Legal in US?`

 
 
 
   

The distinguishing  characteristic of spread spectrum is spreading by a code
INDEPENDENT of the data. FM for example, creates carriers depending upon the
audio frequency and amplitude. SSB creates carriers at a frequency dependent
upon the tone frequency, and RTTY at a pair of set frequencirs depending
upon the shift or the tones used to generate shift. In spread spectrum, as
Jose has written, an independent code is used 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 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. 
>  
>  
>  
> 
> From: KH6TY 
>  Reply-To: 
>  Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:53:53 -0500
>  To: 
>  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: 
>  
>  
>>   
>>  
>>  
>> 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
>> just looking at the output on a spectrum analyzer would also be quite
>> revealing.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> From: KH6TY 
>>  Reply-To: 
>>  Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:03:06 -0500
>>  To: 
>>  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? 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response

[W2XJ]

Agreed, the more letters to the FCC the more problems for amateur radio.



From: "John B. Stephensen" 
Reply-To: 
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:16:22 -
To: 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response

 
 
 
   

 
If someone sent a letter to the FCC about Chip64 they would get the same
response that the FCC gave for ROS. The FCC only gets involved when someone
complains. I think that they would love to have simpler and less restrictive
rules to enforce. It's the public that opposes the removal of restrictions
that they beleive favor their group.
 
73,
 
John
KD6OZH
 
>  
> - Original Message -
>  
> From:  jose alberto  nieto ros 
>  
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>  
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 01:02  UTC
>  
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC  request and response
>  
> 
>
>  
> 
>  
>  
> That is a Spread Spectrum in all his expression and ¿Chip64 is legal?.  Then
> what are we discuss?
>  
> 
>  
>  
> 
>  De: silversmj 
> Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010  01:46
> Asunto: [digitalradio]  Re: ROS . FCC request and response
> 
>
>  
> 
> Greetings All,
> 
> Hmmm . . . with that stated, I guess all US stations  should cease Chip64
> emissions as it is described using SS, see
> http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation  s/techchar/ Chip64.pdf
> 
> (Note: ARRL)
> 
> Someone should mention this  to the ARRL VA Section NTS as they apparently run
> a Net using Chip64,  see
> http://aresracesofv a.org/index. php?option=  com_content& view=article&
> id=88&Itemid= 95 
>  id=95> 
> (Also note:  ARRL)
> 
> I have played with the earlier versions in RX and found it fun  and
> interesting, but 2250Hz wide BW in the CW portions of the Bands is a  little
> much. RTTY Tests are rough enough.
> 
> As was mentioned before by an  individual, it is easy for the for bureaucrats/
> authorities to just say "no",  especially if they already have a busy day and
> don't want to say they need  more information.
> 
> 73 & GL de Mike  KB6WFC
> 
> 
>  
> 
 
   

Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`

[W2XJ]

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. 



From: KH6TY 
Reply-To: 
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:53:53 -0500
To: 
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: 
>   
>  
> 
> 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 just looking
> at the output on a spectrum analyzer would also be quite revealing.
>  
>  
>  
> 
> From: KH6TY 
>  Reply-To: 
>  Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:03:06 -0500
>  To: 
>  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:
>  
>  
>>
>>

Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`

[W2XJ]

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 just looking at the output on a spectrum analyzer would also be quite
revealing.



From: KH6TY 
Reply-To: 
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:03:06 -0500
To: 
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 
>  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  
>>  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?
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
 
   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`

[W2XJ]

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 
Reply-To: 
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:15:50 -
To: 
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus?  Is ROS Legal in US?`

 
 
 
   



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
, "ocypret"  wrote:
>
> So what's the consensus, is ROS legal in the US or not?
>

it seems to be whatever you want !

david/wd4kpd

 
   

Re: [digitalradio] Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`

[W2XJ]

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 that is not
publically accessible.



From: jose alberto nieto ros 
Reply-To: 
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:39:04 + (GMT)
To: 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Consensus?  Is ROS Legal in US?`

 
 
 
   

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 
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  
> 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?
> 
> 

 
 
   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`

[W2XJ]

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 
Reply-To: 
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:14:07 + (GMT)
To: 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`

 
 
 
   

John, the only person in the world who know what is ROS is the person who
have created it. And the creator say that ROS is a FSK of 144 tones with a
Viterbi FEC Coder and a header of synchronization.


De: John 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 00:06
Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`

  
Thank you Andy ..

This has been the point of many [posters here all along. It is only
considered spread spectrum because the author claimed it so, not because it
is technically so. Jose, are you hearing us? because of the way your program
operates an SSB transmitter, it "should" be defined as a form of FSK, "NOT
SPREAD SPECTRUM" 

Many of us here in the US would like to use your program and experiment with
it, but we are regulated by the FCC (we US hams did not write the rules we
have to abide by). They determined it to be spread spectrum solely because
you have declared it as such, and apparently for no other reason.

Can you offer us some help here Jose? (like maybe recheck if it really is
spread spectrum vs FSK) and re-write your description?

Thanks,

John
KE5HAM

--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
 , Andy obrien  wrote:
>
> The FCC has stated , today, that IF the author describes it as spread
> spectrum, the USA ham is responsible for determining the accuracy of this
> claim. They also affirmed that SS is not legal below 220 Mhz. The ARRL
> technical folks said today that , based on the description available, they
> believe it is SS and not legal in the USA below 220 Mhz.
> 
> So the ARRL seems pretty clear. The FCC leaves some wiggle room for the ham
> that feels confident enough to withstand a potential future challenge from
> the FCC. Logic would dictate that if the FCC comes knocking, it world be
> hard to say it is NOT SS...if the author AND the FCC decide that it is.
> 
> e,g. If I came out with a "new" mode that was just CW, but claimed it was
> SS, the average ham would be able to easily prove my claim wrong IF the FCC
> ever tried to take action against someone for using it. However, if a new
> mode appeared technically close to SS, it would be hard to prove the FCC
> wrong. If Jose re-wrote his description and dropped any reference to spread
> spectrum and frequency hopping, those USA hams using it would be safe unless
> the FCC decided for some odd reason to investigate the mode formally and
> make a ruling. If Jose maintains his description, the mode is not likely to
> get any use in the USA.
> 
> 
> Andy K3UK
> 


 
 
   

Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams

[W2XJ]

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. Regardless,
more than 3 khz if not blatantly illegal is certainly not what the FCC
intended.



From: "John B. Stephensen" 
Reply-To: 
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:27:41 -
To: 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams

 
 
 
   

 
The 300 baud limit applies only to the HF RTTY/data segments. In the
phone/image segments below 29 MHz there s no baud rate limit but the
bandwidth is limited by the following parts of 97.307(f).
 
(1) No angle-modulated emission may have a modulation index greater
than 1 at the highest modulation frequency.
(2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a
communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The
total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the
first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not
exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission.
Given the width of some amateur AM signals on 80 meters, this limit seems to
be 10 kHz below 29 MHz.
 
73,
 
John
KD6OZH
>  
> - Original Message -
>  
> From:  Trevor . 
>  
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>  
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 09:18  UTC
>  
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC  Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams
>  
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> However, there may be scope in interpretation  of the regs. Up until a few
> years ago many US amateurs were under the  impression that you could only send
> a maximum of 300 bits per second on HF.  What the rules actually specified was
> a maximum symbol rate of 300 Baud and,  probably because no had thought to do
> so, there was no limit specified on the  number of carriers you could
> transmit. That's how these days US hams can run  digital voice/sstv.
> 
 
   

Re: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams

[W2XJ]

Bonnie you have a Ham unfriendly addenda. Say what you like but at the end
of the day it is BS.



From: expeditionradio 
Reply-To: 
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:09:14 -
To: 
Subject: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams

 
 
 
   

Given the fact that ROS Modem has been advertised as Frequency Hopping
Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it may be quite difficult for USA amateur radio
operators to obtain a positive interpretation of rules by FCC to allow use
of ROS on HF without some type of experimental license or waiver. Otherwise,
hams will need an amendment of FCC rules to use it in USA.

Sadly, this may lead to the early death of ROS among USA hams.

If ROS Modem had simply provided the technical specifications of the
emission, and not called it "Spread Spectrum", there would have been a
chance for it to be easily adopted by Ham Radio operators in USA.

But, the ROS modem designer is rightfully proud of the design, and he lives
in a country that is not bound by FCC rules, and probably had little or no
knowledge of how his advertising might prevent thousands of hams from using
it in USA. 

But, as they say, "You cannot un-ring a bell, once it has been rung".

ROS signal can be viewed as a type of FSK, similar to various other types of
n-ary-FSK presently in widespread use by USA hams. The specific algorithms
for signal process and format could simply have been documented without
calling it Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Since it is a
narrowband signal (using the FCC and ITU definitions of narrowband emission
= less than 3kHz) within the width of an SSB passband, it does not fit the
traditional FHSS description as a conventional wideband technique.

It probably would not have been viewed as FHSS under the spirit and
intention of the FCC rules. It doesn't hop the VFO frequency. It simply FSKs
according to a programmable algorithm, and it meets the infamous 1kHz shift
300 baud rule. 
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#307f3

This is a typical example of how outdated the present FCC rules are, keeping
USA hams in "TECHNOLOGY JAIL" while the rest of the world's hams move
forward with digital technology. It should come as no surprise that most of
the new ham radio digital modes are not being developed in USA!

But, for a moment, let's put aside the issue of current FCC "prohibition"
against Spread Spectrum and/or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum, and how it
relates to ROS mode. Let's look at "bandwidth".

There is the other issue of "bandwidth" that some misguided USA hams have
brought up here and in other forums related to ROS. Some superstitious hams
seem to erroneously think that there is an over-reaching "bandwidth limit"
in the FCC rules for data/text modes on HF that might indicate what part of
the ham band to operate it or not operate it.

FACT:
"There is currently no finite bandwidth limit on HF data/text emission in
USA ham bands, except for the sub-band and band edges."

FACT:
"FCC data/text HF rules are still mainly based on "content" of the emission,
not bandwidth."

New SDR radios have the potential to transmit and receive wider bandwidths
than the traditional 3kHz SSB passband. We will see a lot more development
in this area of technology in the future, and a lot more gray areas of 20th
century FCC rules that inhibit innovation and progress for ham radio HF
digital technology in the 21st century.

Several years ago, there was a proposal to FCC to provide regulation by
bandwidth rather than content. However, it failed to be adopted, and ARRL's
petition to limit bandwidth was withdrawn
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/04/27/101/?nc=1

Thus, USA hams will continue to be in Technology Jail without access to many
new modes in the foreseeable future :(

Best Wishes,
Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA

 
   

Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]]

[W2XJ]

The last thing you want is a ruling. Please be careful what you wish for.
The FCC has written rules that permit a lot of experimentation.  Please do
not push them to over regulate.  To date, we have lost more than gained by
forcing the FCC to get involved.





From: KH6TY 
Reply-To: 
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:30:50 -0500
To: 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]]

 
 
 
   

The FCC is only concerned with what happens to the resultant RF energy and
what is done with it, not how that RF is generated. In the case of ROS, if
the data is applied to an RF carrier and the frequency then hopped, that
would classify it as spread spectrum.

The rules are FCC rules and currently specifically specify spread spectrum
to be used only at 222Mhz and above. If it were not for that specific
reference and the statement by Jose that frequency hopping is used, then the
rules might be subject to interpretation. As it presently is, Jose would
have a tough time in a court of law to prove he does not use frequency
hopping or spread spectrum, as he has already claimed.

Our best chance to legally use ROS in the US is for the FCC to issue a
ruling. As amateurs, and not even lawyers, we are not competent to
second-guess the FCC's lawyers and as long as there are so many previous
claims that ROS is spread spectrum, we are stuck with that definition. Our
best hope is to get the FCC to amend the regulations, or make an exception,
to allow spread spectrum as long as it is capable of being monitored by
third parties and does not exceed the bandwidth of a phone signal, and ROS
would meet all of those conditions.

There are those who think that regulation by bandwidth would solve
everything, but there are also those who would love that chance to take over
the HF bands with automated messaging services so they do not have to worry
about crowding anymore. You can be thankful for regulations that both
protect, and also allow, with limitations, and that cannot be changed
without a sufficient period of public 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 indicates the nature of the narrow band signal being
> spread. So SS with a J designator would be an SSB signal digitally
> spread by the PN code. When received, it is de-spread to an analog SSB
> signal.
>  
> Sound card modes are not necessarily SSB. We use the SSB process as a
> convenient easy to deploy up converter when operating in these modes,
> the modulation occurs in the computer code and could be transmitted with
> varying degrees of ease by other means. CW via sound card is still CW as
> is the case with RTTY. ROS is no exception. It is quite possible to
> drive a DDS chip on frequency and accomplish the exact same result only
> at the expense of greater complexity.
>  
> KH6TY wrote:
>> > Rik,
>> >
>> > Did you see the recent post by K3DCW?
>> >
>> > The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3
>> > Definitions, Para C, line 8:
>> >
>> > /(8) SS/. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion
>> > modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J
>> > or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third
>> > symbol.
>> >
>> > ROS uses SSB so the first designator is J (this meets the definition)
>> > and it uses bandwidth-expansion. (this meets that definition as well)
>> > Thus, taking this definition literally, it is indeed Spread Spectrum
>> > and is thus illegal below 222MHzat least that the conservative
>> > interpretation that I'll stick with until we get a ruling otherwise.
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> > Dave
>> > K3DCW
>> >
>> > Obviously, with such a new mode, there has been no ITU description of
>> > ROS. If it used bandwidth expansion (i.e. frequency hopping), it is
>> > obviously to be classified as spread spectrum. Whether or not modes
>> > like MT63 and Olivia are essentially the same is debatable. The
>> > problem seems to be the direct reference to bandwidth expansion (but
>> > within the width of a phone signal), which, until ruled otherwise (and
>> > I hope it will be) is spread spectrum according to the current FCC
>> > rules, and is currently legal only above 222 Mhz.
>> >
>> > 73 - Skip KH6TY
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Rik van Riel wrote:
>>> >> 
>>> >>
>>> >> On 02/21/2010 

Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]]

[w2xj]

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 indicates the nature of the narrow band signal being 
spread. So SS with a J designator would be an SSB signal digitally 
spread by the PN code. When received, it is de-spread to an analog SSB 
signal.

Sound card modes are not necessarily SSB. We use the SSB process as a 
convenient easy to deploy up converter when operating in these modes, 
the modulation occurs in the computer code and could be transmitted with 
varying degrees of ease by other means. CW via sound card is still CW as 
is the case with RTTY. ROS is no exception. It is quite possible to 
drive a DDS chip on frequency and accomplish the exact same result only 
at the expense of greater complexity.

KH6TY wrote:
> Rik,
>
> Did you see the recent post by K3DCW?
>
> The closest you get to a true definition in Part 97 is in section 97.3 
> Definitions, Para C, line 8:
>
>  /(8) SS/. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion
>  modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J
>  or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third
>  symbol.
>
> ROS uses SSB so the first designator is J (this meets the definition) 
> and it uses bandwidth-expansion. (this meets that definition as well) 
> Thus, taking this definition literally, it is indeed Spread Spectrum 
> and is thus illegal below 222MHzat least that the conservative 
> interpretation that I'll stick with until we get a ruling otherwise.
>
>
> 
> Dave
> K3DCW
>
> Obviously, with such a new mode, there has been no ITU description of 
> ROS. If it used bandwidth expansion (i.e. frequency hopping), it is 
> obviously to be classified as spread spectrum. Whether or not modes 
> like MT63 and Olivia are essentially the same is debatable. The 
> problem seems to be the direct reference to bandwidth expansion (but 
> within the width of a phone signal), which, until ruled otherwise (and 
> I hope it will be) is spread spectrum according to the current 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 the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to
>> > support such operation:
>>
>> Lets look at it in another way. Part 97.3 is quite specific
>> about what modes are considered spread spectrum:
>>
>> (8) SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion
>> modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F,
>> G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol;
>> X as the third symbol.
>>
>> ROS has no ITU designator marking it as spread spectrum.
>>
>> Furthermore, from part 97.307 places this limitation on any
>> data mode transmitted in the HF bands:
>>
>> (2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a
>> communications quality phone emission of the same
>> modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent
>> sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a
>> multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed
>> that of a communications quality A3E emission.
>>
>> ROS follows this rule.
>>
>> In short, ROS has not been ruled to be a spread spectrum mode
>> by the FCC or the ITU, and fits within the bandwidth of a phone
>> communications signal on HF.
>>
>> It also follows the common sense rule of not causing any harm
>> on the HF bands. It really is not much different from the
>> other data modulations out there. JT65, Throb and RTTY also
>> have empty space between carrier positions.
>>
>> I would certainly try out ROS, if it weren't for the fact that
>> I don't have a Windows PC and ROS does not seem to run anywhere
>> else...
>>
>> -- 
>> All rights reversed.
>>
>>
>

Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]

[w2xj]

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 that prohibits ROS even if it
>> were deemed to truly be spread spectrum.
>>
>> KH6TY wrote:
>> > In most legal documents, specific references override general ones.
>> >
>> > In this discussion, only the FCC attorneys can decide what is allowed
>> > and what is not. Until 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 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 part, a station may
>> >> transmit a RTTY or data emission
>> >> using an unspecified digital code, except
>> >> to a station in a country with
>> >> which the United States does not have
>> >> an agreement permitting the code to be
>> >> used. RTTY and data emissions using
>> >> unspecified digital codes must not be
>> >> transmitted for the purpose of obscuring
>> >> the meaning of any communication.
>> >> When deemed necessary by a District
>> >> Director to assure compliance
>> >> with the FCC Rules, a station must:
>> >> (1) Cease the transmission using the
>> >> unspecified digital code;
>> >> (2) Restrict transmissions of any digital
>> >> code to the extent instructed;
>> >> (3) Maintain a record, convertible to
>> >> the original information, of all digital
>> >> communications transmitted
>> >>
>> >> I also do not see anything in the part 97 subsection on spread 
>> spectrum
>> >> ( if in fact ROS was really determined to be an SS mode) that 
>> would make
>> >> ROS non compliant.
>> >>
>> >> Part 97 technical standards mostly harmonize US rules with ITU
>> >> international treaties They are written to be quite broad in order to
>> >> permit experimentation. So long as the coding technique is public and
>> >> can be received by anyone, the real restriction is based on allowable
>> >> bandwidth and power allocated for a given frequency.
>> >>
>> >> John B. Stephensen wrote:
>> >> > The attachments are a good illustration why the rules should be
>> >> changed. Olivia and ROS use a similar amount of spectrum so the FCC
>> >> shouldn't be calling one legal and the other illegal based on how
>> >> they were generated.
>> >> >
>> >> > 73,
>> >> >
>> >> > John
>> >> > KD6OZH
>> >> >
>> >> > - Original Message -
>> >> > From: Tony
>> >> > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>> <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >> > Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 08:20 UTC
>> >> > Subject: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS [2 Attachments]
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > [Attachment(s) from Tony included below]
>> >> >
>> >> > 
>> >> >
>> >> > All,
>> >> >
>> >> > It would appear that ROS-16 is not much different than say Olivia
>> >> 128 / 2K. The number of tones may differ, but they both use MFSK
>> >> modulation with sequential tones running at 16 baud. The question is
>> >> how can ROS be considered a SS frequency hoping mode while Olivia and
>> >> it's derivatives are not?
>> >> >
>> >> > A closer look shows that they are quite similar (see attached).
>> >> >
>> >> > Tony -K2MO
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]

[w2xj]

Please provide a citation from part 97 that prohibits ROS even if it 
were deemed to truly be spread spectrum.


KH6TY wrote:
> In most legal documents, specific references override general ones.
>
> In this discussion, only the FCC attorneys can decide what is allowed 
> and what is not. Until 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 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 part, a station may
>> transmit a RTTY or data emission
>> using an unspecified digital code, except
>> to a station in a country with
>> which the United States does not have
>> an agreement permitting the code to be
>> used. RTTY and data emissions using
>> unspecified digital codes must not be
>> transmitted for the purpose of obscuring
>> the meaning of any communication.
>> When deemed necessary by a District
>> Director to assure compliance
>> with the FCC Rules, a station must:
>> (1) Cease the transmission using the
>> unspecified digital code;
>> (2) Restrict transmissions of any digital
>> code to the extent instructed;
>> (3) Maintain a record, convertible to
>> the original information, of all digital
>> communications transmitted
>>
>> I also do not see anything in the part 97 subsection on spread spectrum
>> ( if in fact ROS was really determined to be an SS mode) that would make
>> ROS non compliant.
>>
>> Part 97 technical standards mostly harmonize US rules with ITU
>> international treaties They are written to be quite broad in order to
>> permit experimentation. So long as the coding technique is public and
>> can be received by anyone, the real restriction is based on allowable
>> bandwidth and power allocated for a given frequency.
>>
>> John B. Stephensen wrote:
>> > The attachments are a good illustration why the rules should be 
>> changed. Olivia and ROS use a similar amount of spectrum so the FCC 
>> shouldn't be calling one legal and the other illegal based on how 
>> they were generated.
>> >
>> > 73,
>> >
>> > John
>> > KD6OZH
>> >
>> > - Original Message -
>> > From: Tony
>> > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>> <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 08:20 UTC
>> > Subject: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS [2 Attachments]
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [Attachment(s) from Tony included below]
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> > All,
>> >
>> > It would appear that ROS-16 is not much different than say Olivia 
>> 128 / 2K. The number of tones may differ, but they both use MFSK 
>> modulation with sequential tones running at 16 baud. The question is 
>> how can ROS be considered a SS frequency hoping mode while Olivia and 
>> it's derivatives are not?
>> >
>> > A closer look shows that they are quite similar (see attached).
>> >
>> > Tony -K2MO
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?]

[w2xj]

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. Steinar, while not specifically a part of FCC rules, spread 
spectrum by gentleman's agreement uses only a few known spreading 
algorithms so it is easy to cycle through them and decrypt the 
transmission. There are other ways to make the signal receivable and so 
long as the FCC can find a means to listen in, you are fine. Otherwise 
you can be ordered off the air.




Steinar Aanesland wrote:
> 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 of  capability to monitor the winmor mode ?
>
> 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
>
>
>
>
>
> On 21.02.2010 19:30, KH6TY wrote:
>   
>> 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 the frequency is clear. Some will say that DX
>> pileups or contesters also do not share, but at the moment of
>> transmission, the frequency may appear to be clear. The interference
>> is due to severe overcrowding, and not intentionally trying to
>> dominate a frequency. This is much different from transmitting without
>> any attempt to check at all. Winmor, Winlink, and ALE all violate that
>> time-honored principle, and so did Propnet until they moved off the
>> normal QSO frequencies.
>>
>> Our FCC has set aside a set of frequencies on several bands for
>> stations that are automatically controlled to accomodate stations that
>> do not listen first, so those stations have no justifiable excuse to
>> complain about interference amongst themselves. They are lucky to have
>> any  place at all to operate, and that space is far greater, in
>> proportion to their representation in the total ham population wishing
>> to use the bands, than would normally be allocated. Just because one
>> group thinks THEIR traffic is more important than other traffic does
>> not give them a right to dominate or claim exclusive or primary use of
>> any frequency. This is a primarily HOBBY, and not a "service" to
>> others, and it is only on that basis that we are permitted to keep the
>> frequencies we have. In a true emergency, ALL frequencies are
>> available to emergency operators and all others MUST give way, so even
>> claiming to be essential for emergencies does not convey any right of
>> ownership of any of our shared frequencies.
>>
>> To answer your question specifically, Winmor, if over 500 Hz wide, is
>> only allowed to operate in those automatic subbands. They are also
>> required to check that the frequency is clear before transmitting,
>> even in the automatic subbands, but that is not enforced because it is
>> basically unenforceable. You can see the result there - stations
>> regularly trample each other because there no practical means of
>> enforcing that they do not. Without rules, just imagine what the bands
>> would be like if powerful or special interest stations that do not
>> listen first were spread all over the bands. That almost happened a
>> few years ago until the FCC refused to implement the ARRL regulation
>> by bandwidth petition.
>>
>> Unless we insist on maintaining and supporting the shared nature of
>> our bands, special interest groups that do not share will take over
>> the bands and others will have no place in which to operate for QSO's,
>> experimenting, contesting, DX chasing, etc., One problem with
>> traditional spread spectrum is that it is designed to be hard to
>> monitor, which therefore means hard to police, either by ourselves, or
>> by government agencies. However, since ROS can be monitored by third
>> parties, we hope that the FCC will amend the regulations to permit ROS
>> to be used on HF, but until that is done, we in this country have no
>> choice but to abide by the current regulations, even though they may
>> seem to be unfair.
>>
>> Without any overall supervision, there will be anarchy, and with
>> arnarchy, chaos will soon follow. Rules help to prevent arnarchy and
>> chaos, and are not 100% effective, but are better than nothing.
>>
>> 73 - Skip KH6TY
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Steinar Aanesland wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 ,

Re: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS]

[w2xj]

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 part, a station may
transmit a RTTY or data emission
using an unspecified digital code, except
to a station in a country with
which the United States does not have
an agreement permitting the code to be
used. RTTY and data emissions using
unspecified digital codes must not be
transmitted for the purpose of obscuring
the meaning of any communication.
When deemed necessary by a District
Director to assure compliance
with the FCC Rules, a station must:
(1) Cease the transmission using the
unspecified digital code;
(2) Restrict transmissions of any digital
code to the extent instructed;
(3) Maintain a record, convertible to
the original information, of all digital
communications transmitted

I also do not see anything in the part 97 subsection on spread spectrum 
( if in fact ROS was really determined to be an SS mode) that would make 
ROS non compliant.

Part 97 technical standards mostly harmonize US rules with ITU 
international treaties  They are written to be quite broad in order to 
permit experimentation. So long as the coding technique is public and 
can be received by anyone, the real restriction is based on allowable 
bandwidth and power allocated for a given frequency.




John B. Stephensen wrote:
> The attachments are a good illustration why the rules should be changed. 
> Olivia and ROS use a similar amount of spectrum so the FCC shouldn't be 
> calling one legal and the other illegal based on how they were generated. 
>
> 73,
>
> John
> KD6OZH
>
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: Tony 
>   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 08:20 UTC
>   Subject: [digitalradio] A closer look at ROS [2 Attachments]
>
>
> 
>   [Attachment(s) from Tony included below]
>
>    
>
>   All, 
>
>   It would appear that ROS-16 is not much different than say Olivia 128 / 2K. 
> The number of tones may differ, but they both use MFSK modulation with 
> sequential tones running at 16 baud. The question is how can ROS be 
> considered a SS frequency hoping mode while Olivia and it's derivatives are 
> not?
>
>   A closer look shows that they are quite similar (see attached). 
>
>   Tony -K2MO 
>
>
>
>   
>   

Re: [digitalradio] portable HF digital in the radio Re: Haiti a test for emcomms

[w2xj]

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  wrote:
>   
>> I truly believe it will be back to the 
>> very basics. DHS seems to feel the same way based on the 
>> money being spent on deployable HF SSB systems. 
>> 
>
> Hi W2XJ,
>
> All the DHS radios have ALE.
>
> Bonnie KQ6XA
>
>
>   

Re: [digitalradio] portable HF digital in the radio Re: Haiti a test for emcomms

[w2xj]

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 likely to be equipped for more sophisticated modes, there is 
other infrastructure such as cell phones, uplinks, hardened fiber, etc 
that are all more accessible to the masses. A disaster that would take 
out all that infrastructure would in all likelihood leave Hams with 
minimal capabilities as well. I truly believe it will be back to the 
very basics. DHS seems to feel the same way based on the money being 
spent on deployable HF SSB systems.




Toby Burnett wrote:
> Just a though, I am with you on the portable radio psk/rtty built in, that
> would be fantastic.  Say a little FT-817 or the 897 etc with a fold out
> qwerty keyboard and display.  Surely it wouldn't be hard to implement.  I
> think there are now software out for psk on a PDA which is about as compact
> as you are going to get.   
>
>  
>
> ---Original Message---
>
>  
>
> From: expeditionradio
>
> Date: 14/01/2010 14:48:45
>
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>
> Subject: [digitalradio] portable HF digital in the radio Re: Haiti a test
> for emcomms
>
>  
>
>   
>
>
>
>
>
>   
>> Russell Blair (NC5O) wrote: 
>> 
>
>   
>> ALE and Winmor and software for a PC, and power 
>> 
>
>   
>> to run all this. but the phone nets maybe slow 
>> 
>
>   
>> but all you need is a radio. 
>> 
>
>
>
> Hi Russell,
>
>
>
> ALE does not need a computer for sending email or 
>
> calling other stations. There are many radios with 
>
> built in ALE. They were expensive, but the price has 
>
> recently come way down on some of them.
>
>
>
> It just works, it is part of the radio's function, 
>
> and you are not at the mercy of your flimsy laptop 
>
> connections, or limited weight and bulk when traveling 
>
> to a disaster zone. The limitations of small airplanes, 
>
> helicopters, or boats could force you to decide 
>
> whether you will bring water/food or a laptop and 
>
> the other radio stuff. 
>
>
>
> It is sad that not many ham radio companies have produced 
>
> portable HF radios with built in PSK31 or RTTY keypad 
>
> interfaces. Such a simple thing to do, but they "just 
>
> don't get it". 
>
>
>
> Only a few VHF/UHF HTs even have APRS built in. Such a shame.
>
>
>
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops

[W2XJ]

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 non
communicative on the part of those posters. What is worse, some groups like
HFpack require this and as a result the output from that group is useless.





From: Jeff Moore 
Reply-To: 
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:20:22 -0800
To: 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops

 
 
 
   

With What?
 
Jeff Moore   --  KE7ACY
 
- Original Message - From: Alan Wilson 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
  
I agree completely..73, Alan

 
 
   

Re: [digitalradio] Techs on HF digital

[W2XJ]

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 
Reply-To: 
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:55:14 -
To: 
Subject: [digitalradio] Techs on HF digital

 
 
 
   

I thought I'd run something up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes:

With the currently extended low sunspot cycle reducing the occurrence of 10
meter openings to near zero, there is little to offer new hams for radio
operating opportunities besides VHF FM.  Many of the people who attend our
Technician license classes are interested in doing much more than chatting
with the local guys on a local repeater.  Sure, VHF SSB is a possibility but
for us rural folks, even that provides slim pickings for distant contacts.

We are seeing a very low percentage of newly licensed people ever buying a
transceiver and getting on the air.  We are estimating that number to be
less than 10%.  Other clubs in our area are experiencing the same problem:
good turn out for classes and lots of licenses issued but few new hams
getting on the air.  It may be that VHF FM is not a viable stepping stone to
getting very many new folks active in Amateur Radio.

Being an old fart, I naturally began as a novice operating CW on the HF
bands.  Finding other stations to make contact with was never a problem as
there was always activity on either 40 or 80 meters, depending upon the time
of day.  Making contact with other stations hundreds of miles away was
common.  While that same opportunity is available today, at least
theoretically, CW operation is not part of a new ham's skill set.

So... Here is the idea.  Would you be amenable to allowing Technician Class
licensees to operate digital modes in the Technician CW bands and do you
think that would be of interest to new hams?

I would imagine, the license limitations would have to state something like
a maximum of 300 baud and 500 Hz bandwidth with a 200 watt power limit.
There may be other limitations that might be nice to toss into the mix but
this is a starting point for discussion.

Your thoughts?

Gary - N0GW

 
   

Re: [digitalradio] Windows 98 Key needed

[w2xj]

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 modes. I have the original restoration CDs, but apparently have lost 
>the paperwork with the key.
>
>This is NOT a request to pirate the OS! I have the original disk, and if 
>someone still has a key left over from a Win98 installation that is no longer 
>used, I will be happy to give it a good home.
>
>Tried upgrading the laptop to WinXP, but it's too slow for it to work. 
>Reinstalled Win98, but stuck at the "Enter Key" screen.
>
>Tnx es 73
>Dave
>KB3MOW
>
>
>
>  
>

Re: [digitalradio] Interface of Choice

[W2XJ]

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
> Kenwood TS870.
> 
> What is the interface of choice for this combination? Some have PTT
> control, some use Vox, built-in sound cards??? 
> 
> Too many choices!
> 
> Clif
> 
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: [illinoisdigitalham] Re: Power Mask for Bandwidth Rules - USA

[W2XJ]

At one time the ARRL published plans for class B modulators with no 
filters. What they publish will stay with the times. There is no reason 
higher order analog filters can not be built if required.  25 or 30 db 
down at 3.5 K is not unreasonable since such analog filters are 1980s 
state of the art. Digital filters and digital modulators are no longer 
black art either. Then there are the popular SDR designs where almost 
anything is possible. I thought the hobby was supposed to advance the 
art not mimic commercial art of decades past.



John B. Stephensen wrote:
> The ARRL is publishing designs for simple phasing SSB exciters with 3-pole 
> filters and filter-type exciters with 4-pole crystal filters so we can't 
> count on DSP. Phasing transmitter kits have filters with at least 5-poles so 
> they are somewhat better. These should be able to acheive 23 dB suppression 4 
> kHz from the carrier under any circumstances. There could be an exception for 
> older AM transmitters or transmitters under 10W PEP. What is really needed is 
> a rule that says 3rd order IMD must be at least 30 dB down.
> 
> 73,
> 
> John
> KD6OZH
> 
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: W2XJ 
>   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 23:16 UTC
>   Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: [illinoisdigitalham] Re: Power Mask for 
> Bandwidth Rules - USA
> 
> 
>   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 
>   choice. They are in very common use in broadcasting. Today digital 
>   filter, common in current rigs, can do much better.
> 
>   A lesson to be learned from AM broadcast is that when emission 
>   standards were tightened, allowance in the standard was made for older 
>   rigs. That so called mask was then later used as a means to add digital 
>   carriers. There is a lot of interference created. A better approach 
>   would exempt transmitter built before a certain date but only for the AM 
>   mode.
> 
>   ohn B. Stephensen wrote:
>   > An emission mask must accomodate AM so I looked at the speech amplifier 
> and modulator chapter in the 1955 Radio Amateur's Handbook. It advocates up 
> to 25 dB of clipping and no circuit has more than a 3-pole filter. The best 
> that can be done today is a Chebyshev filter with 1 dB ripple and a 2.5 kHz 
> cutoff frequency providing 23 dB of attenuation at 5 kHz and 27dB of 
> attenuation at 6.5 kHz. Filters would be worse in 1955 as modern filter 
> design methologies hadn't been invented yet. 
>   > 
>   > Only the outer portions of the mask should be defined in the regulations 
> so that old equipment can continue to be used but hams with more modern 
> equipment can be more efficient and use a larger percentage of the channel. 
> The ARRL proposal of 9 kHz at -23 dB might be the best than AM'ers can 
> acheive now. 
>   > 
>   > 73,
>   > 
>   > John
>   > KD6OZH
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: [illinoisdigitalham] Re: Power Mask for Bandwidth Rules - USA

[W2XJ]

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 
choice. They are in very common use in broadcasting. Today digital 
filter, common in current rigs, can do much better.

   A lesson to be learned from AM broadcast is that when emission 
standards were tightened, allowance in the standard was made for older 
rigs. That so called mask was then later used as a means to add digital 
carriers. There is a lot of interference created. A better approach 
would exempt transmitter built before a certain date but only for the AM 
mode.




ohn B. Stephensen wrote:
> An emission mask must accomodate AM so I looked at the speech amplifier and 
> modulator chapter in the 1955 Radio Amateur's Handbook. It advocates up to 25 
> dB of clipping and no circuit has more than a 3-pole filter. The best that 
> can be done today is a Chebyshev filter with 1 dB ripple and a 2.5 kHz cutoff 
> frequency providing 23 dB of attenuation at 5 kHz and 27dB of attenuation at 
> 6.5 kHz.  Filters would be worse in 1955 as modern filter design methologies 
> hadn't been invented yet. 
> 
> Only the outer portions of the mask should be defined in the regulations so 
> that old equipment can continue to be used but hams with more modern 
> equipment can be more efficient and use a larger percentage of the channel. 
> The ARRL proposal of 9 kHz at -23 dB might be the best than AM'ers can 
> acheive now. 
> 
> 73,
> 
> John
> KD6OZH
> 
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)

[W2XJ]

Point well taken, provided that is how the rule is actually written.




John B. Stephensen wrote:
> I used 8 kHz because the FCC will specify the maximum bandwidth at -23 dB. 
> Users want 6 kHz minimum bandwidth with minimal attenuation. Maufacturers of 
> ham radio equipment usually specify the bandwidth of a 6 kHz crystal filter 
> at the -3 dB points and the tolerance is often -0% / +25%. AM and phasing SSB 
> transmitters have audio low-pass filters that roll off at 30-42 dB per 
> octave. 
> 
> 73,
> 
> John
> KD6OZH
> 
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: W2XJ 
>   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 08:45 UTC
>   Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC 
> to Kill Digital Radio?)
> 
> 
>   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 wrote:
>   > An ALE network and WinLink are both useful. My comments to the FCC were:
>   > 
>   > "RM-11392 attempts to address problems of interference between narrow
>   > and wide bandwidth text and data communition modes on amateur
>   > bands, but the proposed rule changes will create more problems than
>   > they solve. Historicly, communication in the amateur radio service
>   > was either narrow-band (100-500Hz) text or wideband (2-7 kHz) voice
>   > and each fequency band was partitioned into 2 segments. These were
>   > originally for cw and phone, but now are rtty/data and phone/image. 
>   > 
>   > With the arrival of digital modulation techniques text, images and
>   > voice may be transmitted alternately or simultaneously using the
>   > same modulation method and with various occupied bandwidths. The
>   > best solution for the future and the one that minimizes regulatory
>   > burdens on both users and the FCC is to redefine these band
>   > segments as being for narrow-band and wide-band emissions 
>   > regardless of content (voice, image, text or data). 
>   > 
>   > In my view, the optimal maximum bandwidths for frequencies below 29
>   > MHz are 800 Hz at for the narrow-band segments (usually the lower
>   > frequencies in each band) and 8 kHz for the wide-band segments
>   > (usually the higher frequencies in each band). 800 Hz allows for CW,
>   > RTTY, PSK31, MFSK16 and other modes used for keyboard-to-keyboard
>   > comunication and slow-speed image communication and file transfer. 8
>   > kHz is consistant with limits in other countries (when they exist at
>   > all), allows existing AM stations to continue to operate and allows
>   > simultaneous voice/text/image communiation using analog or digital
>   > modulation.
>   > 
>   > A small area (10-20 kHz) for automated stations must also be
>   > established in the wide-band segments of HF bands to allow for
>   > PACTOR-3 and similar protcols used for message forwaring as they
>   > are invaluable during emergencies where the normal communications
>   > infrastructure is compromised.
>   > 
>   > If the rule changes are to extend beyond 29 MHz, maximum bandwidths
>   > of 20 kHz should be adopted between 29 and 29.7 MHz and 200 kHz 
>   > between 50 and 225 MHz for the old phone/image segments. This allows
>   > for exsting FM voice and medium-speed data stations in the 10, 6, 2,
>   > and 1.25 meter bands. Any bandwidth limits above 420 MHz must be
>   > 25 MHz or greater to accomodate existing stations using IEEE 802
>   > data trasmission and AM and FM TV. In my opinion, no bandwidth
>   > limits are required above 420 MHz as long as emissions stay within 
>   > the designated bands for the amateur radio service.
>   > 
>   > The rules changes outlined above should solve several problems and 
>   > decrease regulatory burdens in the future."
>   > 
>   > 73,
>   > 
>   > John
>   > KD6OZH
>   > 
>   > - Original Message - 
>   > From: expeditionradio 
>   > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>   > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 07:16 UTC
>   > Subject: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to 
> Kill Digital Radio?)
>   > 
>   > 
>   > The Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (HFN)
>   > http://www.hflink.com/hfn/ 
>   > is the only HF 24/7 network on ham radio that can be accessed and used
>   > for text messaging without an external comp

Re: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to Kill Digital Radio?)

[W2XJ]

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 wrote:
> An ALE network and WinLink are both useful. My comments to the FCC were:
> 
> "RM-11392 attempts to address problems of interference between narrow
> and wide bandwidth text and data communition modes on amateur
> bands, but the proposed rule changes will create more problems than
> they solve. Historicly, communication in the amateur radio service
> was either narrow-band (100-500Hz) text or wideband (2-7 kHz) voice
> and each fequency band was partitioned into 2 segments. These were
> originally for cw and phone, but now are rtty/data and phone/image. 
> 
> With the arrival of digital modulation techniques text, images and
> voice may be transmitted alternately or simultaneously using the
> same modulation method and with various occupied bandwidths. The
> best solution for the future and the one that minimizes regulatory
> burdens on both users and the FCC is to redefine these band
> segments as being for narrow-band and wide-band emissions 
> regardless of content (voice, image, text or data). 
> 
> In my view, the optimal maximum bandwidths for frequencies below 29
> MHz are 800 Hz at for the narrow-band segments (usually the lower
> frequencies in each band) and 8 kHz for the wide-band segments
> (usually the higher frequencies in each band). 800 Hz allows for CW,
> RTTY, PSK31, MFSK16 and other modes used for keyboard-to-keyboard
> comunication and slow-speed image communication and file transfer. 8
> kHz is consistant with limits in other countries (when they exist at
> all), allows existing AM stations to continue to operate and allows
> simultaneous voice/text/image communiation using analog or digital
> modulation.
> 
> A small area (10-20 kHz) for automated stations must also be
> established in the wide-band segments of HF bands to allow for
> PACTOR-3 and similar protcols used for message forwaring as they
> are invaluable during emergencies where the normal communications
> infrastructure is compromised.
> 
> If the rule changes are to extend beyond 29 MHz, maximum bandwidths
> of 20 kHz should be adopted between 29 and 29.7 MHz and 200 kHz 
> between 50 and 225 MHz for the old phone/image segments. This allows
> for exsting FM voice and medium-speed data stations in the 10, 6, 2,
> and 1.25 meter bands. Any bandwidth limits above 420 MHz must be
> 25 MHz or greater to accomodate existing stations using IEEE 802
> data trasmission and AM and FM TV. In my opinion, no bandwidth
> limits are required above 420 MHz as long as emissions stay within 
> the designated bands for the amateur radio service.
> 
> The rules changes outlined above should solve several problems and 
> decrease regulatory burdens in the future."
> 
> 73,
> 
> John
> KD6OZH
> 
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: expeditionradio 
>   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 07:16 UTC
>   Subject: [digitalradio] Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (Re: FCC to 
> Kill Digital Radio?)
> 
> 
>   The Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (HFN)
>   http://www.hflink.com/hfn/ 
>   is the only HF 24/7 network on ham radio that can be accessed and used
>   for text messaging without an external computer or modem. HFN may also
>   be used with a regular HF ham radio and a laptop or PC computer
>   soundcard using one of several free ALE software programs. 
> 
>   Ham Radio ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) would cease to exist if any
>   of the objectives of FCC RM-11392 petition were to succeed.
> 
>   HFN covers all of North America, and other parts of the world.
>   All HF bands.
>   All day.
>   All night.
> 
>   see map: 
>   http://hflink.com/HFN_PILOT_STATION_MAP1.jpg
> 
>   HFN operates within FCC rules in the Automatically Controlled Data
>   Station HF Sub Bands... see chart:
>   http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg
> 
>   The HFN system uses International Standard ALE (8FSK, with 2.2kHz
>   bandwidth) for selective calling, nets, bulletins, data, HF-to-HF
>   relay, direct text messaging, HF-to-Cell Phone texting, and short text
>   e-messaging. 
> 
>   The primary purpose of HFN is to provide Emergency / Disaster Relief
>   Communications. When the system is not being used for the primary
>   purpose, it provides normal daily routine text messaging services,
>   propagation services, and many other types of features for hams.
> 
>   HFN ALE stations use a common frequency per band, sharing the same
>   "channel" on a time-domain multiplexed basis, with a combination of
>   automatic busy detection and/or collision detection systems. The
>   transmissions are normally sent in quick bursts.
> 
>   The system is free and open for all ham radio operators... 
>   for more informat

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition

[W2XJ]

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 how the 
>>system works from his yacht. If people want to tie up marine
> 
> frequencies 
> 
>>with such a low speed system, fine. Personally I think if one can
> 
> afford 
> 
>>a sea going vessel with an installed ham station, they can carry 
>>Immarsat and move data at 64 kbps. This has no place on amateur
> 
> frequencies.
> 
> 
> So are all the radios we use, ICOM, YAESU, KENWOOD, ALINCO to name a
> few. Are they commercial too? Noone is going to make something for
> nothing OM. These are all commercial radios and we like to call them
> Amateur because we like to use them. Same with the SCS modems. As for
> the rich tanned German guy, is it illegal to be rich and tanned now?
> 
> Should we ban from the hobby the tanned rich Germans now?
> 
> 73 de Demetre SV1UY
> 
> 


You miss all  my points. I suspect you prefer it that way.

Point 1 the website states that PACTOR III is designed for SSB HF 
channels. They also link to a number of commercial maritime service 
providers. This is the intended use. At least in the US and probably 
elsewhere, this on it's face makes the system illegal for amateur use 
since text and data can not be transmitted in the SSB band segment and 
SSB width signals are not permitted in the text data segments. It is a 
very simply a system designed for primarily marine channels and serviced 
by commercial gateways.

My comment about the German guy speaks to selfish abuse of the amateur 
bands. If he has the money to be cruising the Mediterranean in his 
yacht, he can afford to pay a commercial PACTOR gateway and/or use 
immarsat. Immarsat is a superior solution to begin with.

It would be interesting to see just how much PACTOR traffic violates 
various amateur rules pertaining to content and third party relay. In 
this country it could be argued that it also violates rules that pertain 
to automated stations.

I am contemplating the purchase of an SCS TNC just to turn in the violators.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Your excellent petition

[W2XJ]

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 speed system, fine. Personally I think if one can afford 
a sea going vessel with an installed ham station, they can carry 
Immarsat and move data at 64 kbps. This has no place on amateur frequencies.



Demetre SV1UY wrote:

> Hi Skip,
> 
> I am quoting here my reply to DAVE about his Anti-radiation missiles
> tuned to PACTOR PMBO frequencies for your information! 
> That shows you exactly the attitude of some people against anything
> they dislike and how they act. If the Pactor PMBOs activated any DCD
> mechanism, people like Dave would sit there all day to deliberately
> cause QRM with their Anti-Radiation missiles tuned to the PACTOR PMBO
> frequencies, as he said, and cause havoc. Is this kind of QRM accepted
> by you?
> 
> What about this Skip? Is this justified? Tell me what works perfectly
> on HF and if we manage to correct them all then PACTOR will follow and
> I believe the PMBOs will have no problem finding a way to implement a
> DCD mechanism.
> 
> And just like Andy, our moderator, said previously:
> -
> Aside from Pactor, I suspect that many ALE operations are not always
> under full manual control. Neither are some Propnet stations that use
> 300 baud packet or PSK31. Many DXpeditions act like they can transmit
> any place they want, and then there are also the folks at W1AW who
> send old news automatically at predetermined times via RTTY and CW.
> --
> And I must add, what about the numerous nets on HF that deliberately
> cause QRM when anyone dares to use their frequency before they start
> their NET? What about AX25 BBS FORWARDING that still takes place on
> HF? (These are really the automatic ROBOTS, not the semi-automatic
> PACTOR PMBOs), what about HF APRS Digis? 
> 
> What are you going to do about all them? 
> 
> Fix the HF bands first and then blame PACTOR PMBOs and automatic
> operations.
> 
> Forget about PACTOR 3 being the problem because it isn't. 
> 
> 73 de Demetre SV1UY

Re: [digitalradio] STOP THE BITCHING AND MOANING!!!!

[W2XJ]

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 mostly for maritime operation. The rules in the US seem 
to prohibit PACTOR III if it is downward compatible. I still believe 
that if you can afford a sea going yacht you can afford the appropriate 
non amateur communications systems that are much more reliable.




jeffnjr484 wrote:
> I know there are problems with the automatic winlink systems i've run 
> into them myself but when I do I just move to another frequency and
> move on. There are plenty channels to use out there!!. The thing I
> fear the most from all this is one day the FCC is going to say to heck
> with ham radio all they do is cause us grief lets sell all those
> frequencies to the highest bidder and make some money and shut them
> up!!. Or they will decide that the bands we love for personal
> communications need to stop and only get used during emergencies . All
> this complaining about digital stuff but nothing is said about all the
> radio jerks on voice who hog channels or make delibrate qrm to chase
> people off the air (keying up or blowing in the mike or switching on
> high power anything to disturb an ongoing qso) no complaints filed
> with the FCC on these things but anything that could eventually hurt
> our hobby and our advancement in our art of communications is attacked
> . It's time to work together folks most of the problems with automatic
> stations are caused by the operators of those stations not the mode
> they are using if someone is not where they supposed to be then report
> them don't kill the mode or make it harder on everybody else who
> enjoys the many modes of ham radio . With the conditions and the
> propergation these days no one can really know if they are
> interferring with another station if they can't hear them on there in
> it occurs a whole lot in radio not just on digital all modes can be
> quite locally and cause interference distances away and only the
> person receiving the qrm will know about it. An how about the hams
> with the big amps running 1000 watts and coming through on five
> channels in the qso is with someone 10 miles away!!! There are many
> problems in our hobby but 90% of them are the operators who feel they
> own the bands for themselves only so how come a letter has not been
> sent to the FCC on these problems . Im off my soap box now and if I
> 've stepped on toes im sorry but its just getting way to out of hand
> these days with the grumbling!!
> Jeff kd4qit
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[W2XJ]

There is the DSTAR network that is Internet linked as well as IRLP and 
Echolink. All the above more portable than an NVIS set up. Don't get  me 
wrong NVIS is a good use of frequencies and well proven but if data is 
being passed, the other solutions are more efficient. As always 
different situations require different solutions.




Rud Merriam wrote:
> If I need something to go from Houston to Austin I need to use HF NVIS. The
> higher bands are not usable.
> 
> Although, having said that, I do believe the higher bands could be used for
> longer distance communications than is done presently. 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 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
> 
> 
> I see the point about document transfer, but wouldn't higher speed modes 
> at higher frequencies be more efficient? For situations where 
> infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well planned DSTAR network be 
> much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable radio located almost 
> anywhere would seem to be a much more powerful tool than a painfully 
> slow HF link.
> 
> 
> 
> Rud Merriam wrote:
> 
>>You are entitled to your opinion. However, I am interested in digital 
>>communications including email over HF. As a license ham I will claim 
>>my ability to work in that mode.
>>
>>As an AEC and active in emergency preparedness beyond ham radio I do 
>>see a role for digital communications including email and other 
>>document handling capabilities via ham radio. All modes have a role in 
>>EmComm, or as in my preferred viewpoint, a communications disaster. 
>>Such a disaster does not occur only when infrastructure is destroyed 
>>but also when the infrastructure is overwhelmed. This can occur in 
>>situations like the hurricane Rita evacuation in the Houston area. 
>>There are also situations where transferring documents is more 
>>accurate and more quickly done in modes other than voice or CW.
>>
>> 
>>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 12:53 PM
>>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
>>
>>
>>I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send 
>>email
>>via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the 
>>computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too 
>>organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a lot 
>>of infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some 
>>form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes 
>>should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if 
>>it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now 
>>that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a 
>>primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to 
>>accomplish the most with the least.
>>
>>
>>
>>Rud Merriam wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for
>>>those who express strong displeasure with Pactor.
>>>
>>>Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its
>>>bandwidth?
>>>
>>>Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a
>>>fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band 
>>>conditions?

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[W2XJ]

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 viable
> role in their communications. This is where PACTOR 3 comes and solves
> their problem. Also when everything has gone down in an emergency,
> PACTOR 3 can give you reliable communications using a PACTOR mailbox
> that resides in a neighbouring country. Sometimes through the night
> when I cannot access any European PACTOR PMBOS because I do not have a
> decent 80 meters antenna

It looks like your Internet connection to this list is working fine. Are 
you using PACTOR?

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[W2XJ]

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 
30 meters period.

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[W2XJ]

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 without listening. I don't think that in an emergency you would 
not want such a bot stepping on your CW,SSB,PSK31,etc.


John Becker, WØJAB wrote:
> Sure it would but what are you going to do away from the 
> big cities? I live in a rural area VHF UHF other then satellite
> is useless. I have one portable radio this is used for Emergency 
> Medical Services for a 3 county area as a EMT. You got to 
> remember that "painfully slow HF link" may be the *only*
> link that we have that is working.
> 
> John, W0JAB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 03:15 PM 12/26/2007, you wrote:
> 
>>I see the point about document transfer, but wouldn't higher speed modes 
>>at higher frequencies be more efficient? For situations where 
>>infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well planned DSTAR network be 
>>much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable radio located almost 
>>anywhere would seem to be a much more powerful tool than a painfully 
>>slow HF link.
> 
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[W2XJ]

I see the point about document transfer, but wouldn't higher speed modes 
at higher frequencies be more efficient? For situations where 
infrastructure is in place, wouldn't a well planned DSTAR network be 
much more efficient? 100 kbps from a portable radio located almost 
anywhere would seem to be a much more powerful tool than a painfully 
slow HF link.



Rud Merriam wrote:
> You are entitled to your opinion. However, I am interested in digital
> communications including email over HF. As a license ham I will claim my
> ability to work in that mode. 
> 
> As an AEC and active in emergency preparedness beyond ham radio I do see a
> role for digital communications including email and other document handling
> capabilities via ham radio. All modes have a role in EmComm, or as in my
> preferred viewpoint, a communications disaster. Such a disaster does not
> occur only when infrastructure is destroyed but also when the infrastructure
> is overwhelmed. This can occur in situations like the hurricane Rita
> evacuation in the Houston area. There are also situations where transferring
> documents is more accurate and more quickly done in modes other than voice
> or CW. 
> 
>  
> 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 12:53 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition
> 
> 
> I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send email 
> via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the 
> computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too 
> organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a lot 
> of infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some 
> form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes 
> should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if 
> it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now 
> that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a 
> primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to 
> accomplish the most with the least.
> 
> 
> 
> Rud Merriam wrote:
> 
>>This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for 
>>those who express strong displeasure with Pactor.
>>
>>Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its 
>>bandwidth?
>>
>>Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a 
>>fixed bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band 
>>conditions?

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Questions on digital opposition

[W2XJ]

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 in
> places where not even a mobile phone can operate? Are these not Radio
> Hams? 


Well I do travel in remote portions of our South West. I carry an IC 
7000 and a VX-7. But I also have a satellite phone and an emergency 
locater in addition to my normal cell phone. It is important to separate 
business from a hobby. In such a situation there are not that many 
scenarios where ham radio would be a better emergency solution than 
those systems designed for the task. The reason I say this is that VHF 
and UHF are only occasionally viable. If there is a situation where one 
has a personal emergency, accident or injury, it is not really practical 
  to set up an HF rig. There is also the question will there be the 
appropriate band conditions for the necessary communications. On a ship 
there HF gear would already be installed and would be great as a last 
resort, but I for one would start out with a system where I knew there 
was 24 hour monitoring.

  For those who do not have an Internet connection, I have two comments 
- 1 - They would be better served with a UHF link that offers decent 
band width. 2- I would question the legality of such a data link in the 
first place.

> 
> Not to mention emergency situations where these "Extremely Wide" HF
> Networking Digital Modes like PACTOR 3 might assist. (2.2 KHZ wide,
> less than a voice channel, hmm some width, don't you think?) .

'Might assist' is the operative word. I don't know about you, but I have 
lived through a few emergencies both here in New York and elsewhere. On 
9-11 we lost virtually all communications in the city. The digital 
radios failed our fire fighters and cost lives. Repeater systems 
Amateur, Public safety, cell phone and ENG were all lost when the towers 
fell. Regular telephone and cell phone systems were jammed. The city's 
emergency management office was destroyed. Things that worked then were 
the basic things. Same goes for the black outs we have had. We learned 
not to depend on any installed infrastructure.  Our club is in the 
process of building a repeater that should remain functional under all 
but the very worst of situations.



> 
> Helping in Emergencies is number ONE PRIORITY in every Amateur Service
> all around the World!!! From what I have read it is also number ONE in
> USA. 

Very true, but the modes should be reliable and usable under primitive 
conditions


> 
> QSL card collection (although I do not dislike it) is not number ONE.
> It is number TWO in Amateur Radio.

Actually experimentation is my number two and it includes a number of 
digital  modes.
> 
> Are you trying to tell us that number ONE priority is worthless???

No, I am telling you that the number one priority should be given more 
serious consideration. Anyone can use almost any situation as a straw 
man  and claim that it supports emergency communications.

> 
> Everyone has the right to exercise their hobby in the Ham Radio Bands
> OM. And don't tell me that PACTOR 3 operators do not listen before
> they transmit. They always listen because they want their transmitters
> to stay cool, especially if this HF radio they are using is their only
> means of communication. Makes sense doesn't it? At least I hope it
> does to you!!!

That is not what other PACTOR operators have stated as recently as today 
in this thread. PACTOR stations listen for other PACTOR stations but not 
stations operating in other modes.

Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

[W2XJ]

There are plenty of digital modes that do not interfere. At the end of 
the day everything boils down to signal to noise and bandwidth. If a 
signal is really weak, it will have to be received in a narrow 
bandwidth. The narrower the bandwidth, the slower the transfer of 
information. At HF, digital transmission is limited to some fairly basic 
modulation schemes if it is to work under poor conditions. There is only 
so much that can be accomplished. Look at the commercial digital systems 
used by various public safety organizations that operate on more stable 
UHF channels. When they are needed most, they often fail and authorities 
revert back to the old analog systems.

Don't get me wrong, I like experimenting with digital modes. It is just 
that at this point I would never use the excuse of emergency service to 
justify it. I certainly think that stations that transmit without 
listening are more of a hazard in an emergency than an asset.

It is interesting to note that homeland security is investing in analog 
SSB systems for last resort backup.



Michael Hatzakis Jr MD wrote:

> HF digital modes that can operate under very low signal situations are very
> useful to many and would be sad to see them be abolished.  I agree, their
> use needs to be fine tuned, but abolishing them seems draconian.  With all
> our innovation, why not spend our energy on their fair and more efficient
> use rather than chasing them away.  
> 
>  
> 
> My fear is that if we chase away modes we don’t like, when HF bands become
> really quiet because people no longer use CW and the number of hams declines
> because the hobby becomes uninteresting, the allocation gets sold to the
> highest commercial bidder.  We need to promote diversity to survive.  The
> world is going digital and wireless and this is what many new hams enjoy,
> like myself.  


Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php


View the DRCC numbers database at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [digitalradio] Questions on digital opposition

[W2XJ]

I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send email 
via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the 
computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too 
organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a lot 
of infrastructure. Simple systems, temporary installations all with some 
form of emergency power is what is required in an emergency. Modes 
should be those that can be supported station to station. Basically if 
it is not part of the rig, it is too complicated for an emergency. Now 
that CW is not an FCC requirement that is no reason to abandon it as a 
primary emergency mode. It is still the mode that permits one to 
accomplish the most with the least.



Rud Merriam wrote:
> This is meant as a couple of constructive, clarifying, questions for those
> who express strong displeasure with Pactor.
> 
> Would you decrease your opposition if Pactor III did not expand its
> bandwidth? 
> 
> Could you accept wide band digital modes if they all operated in a fixed
> bandwidth, i.e. not expanding or contracting due to band conditions?
> 
> 
> Rud Merriam K5RUD 
> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> http://TheHamNetwork.net
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

[W2XJ]

With the current band conditions, almost all I hear is CW. There are 
good digital modes such as PSK31 but we do not need bandwidth hogging 
autonomous robots jumping on any QSO that happens to get in it's way.



Michael Hatzakis Jr MD wrote:
> I am fairly naïve to this situation, but have been a ham for the last 35
> years.  I wonder, which narrow band modes do you refer to for use in a dire
> emergency?
> 
>  
> 
> CW?  How many CW ops do you think there will be left in 50 years, or even 10
> years?  And, if you are 500 miles out at sea, and need to make a contact or
> log your position, no cell phone, and with crappy band conditions, how
> effective do you really think voice or RTTY will be?  I can tell you,
> useless. 
> 
>  
> 
> Of course, one can make the point that sailors can use commercial sailmail
> systems, but what a great way to encourage sailors to become hams.  How many
> hams do we think will be left in 50 years?  Less or more than today?  A
> friend of mine re-entered the hobby when he voyaged across the pacific and
> used Winlink and HF voice along with other modes just to stay in touch.  He
> had no other communication modes available.  
> 
>  
> 
> Maybe there is a better way than to abolish higher bandwidth digital in the
> HF spectrum.  How about further band segment segregation? 
> 
>  
> 
> My $0.02
> 
>  
> 
> Michael
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   _  
> 
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of W2XJ
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:44 AM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio
> Technology?
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 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@ <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>
> 
> yahoogroups.com, W2XJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>>>I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band 
>>>modes, there must be an investigation.
>>
>>
>>You will need to start with the widest modes...
>>how about 80 meters AM interfering with SSB. 
>>What about vice-versa?
>>Should there be an "investigation" when a narrower mode 
>>interferes with a wider mode?
>>
>>The petition is not about interference.
>>It is about killing ALL digital data modes wider than 1.5kHz.
>>Manual or auto. End of story. 
>>
>>Bonnie KQ6XA
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] First FCC Came for the PACTOR

[W2XJ]

A little over the top?



expeditionradio wrote:
> First FCC Came for the PACTOR3, 
> and I did not speak out
> because I was not a PACTOR operator.
> 
> Then FCC came for RTTY, 
> and I did not speak out
> because I was not an RTTY op.
> 
> Then FCC came for the PSK,
> and I did not speak out
> because I was not a PSKer.
> 
> Then they came for me,
> and there was no one left
> to speak out for me.
>  
> [Adapted from "First They Came for the Jews" 
> by Martin Niemöller]
>  
> They may be coming for you and your favorite mode next.
> 
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
> 
> ===
> Read the FCC "Petition to Kill Digital Radio Technology" here:
> http://hflink.com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf
> 
> File your comments against "proceeding RM-11392" here:
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
> 
> Can we get at least one hundred hams to oppose it?
> Please do your part.
> 
> .
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

[W2XJ]

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.




expeditionradio wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Phil Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> 
>>does the petition, if approved, kill Winlink?
>>
>>Good question. Bonnie?
>>
> 
> 
> The primary objective of the petition is to attack  
> Winlink2000 on HF. 
> 
> The petition is not a smart bomb for Winlink2000.
> There is tremendous "collateral damage" ...you the ham!
> 
> It is a blast that obliterates all digital HF innovation.
> 
> It will kill every ham's ability to explore digital data 
> time-sharing techniques on HF into the future.
> 
> It will kill the only 24/7 HF emergency data ham radio 
> service that can be accessed without an external computer.
> 
> The petition is a fight by 20th Century "frequency-division" 
> to try to eliminate new 21st Century "time-division" techniques.
> 
> Let us hope that the FCC can see through the petitioner's ruse.
> Do your part, tell them to stop it.
> 
> Bonnie KQ6XA 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

[W2XJ]

The Cw segments should not be subverted for questionable digital modes 
that are really last century's news.


Phil Barnett wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:30:34 am W2XJ wrote:
> 
> 
>>I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band
>>modes, there must be an investigation.
> 
> 
> That's a pretty broad brush. Perhaps for repeated and documented interference 
> by some specific mode.
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

[W2XJ]

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 be an investigation.
> 
> 
> You will need to start with the widest modes...
> how about 80 meters AM interfering with SSB. 
> What about vice-versa?
> Should there be an "investigation" when a narrower mode 
> interferes with a wider mode?
> 
> The petition is not about interference.
> It is about killing ALL digital data modes wider than 1.5kHz.
> Manual or auto. End of story. 
> 
> Bonnie KQ6XA
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

[W2XJ]

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 gap operators
>>when they didn't want CW.
> 
> 
> Yeah, but with some major differences.
> 
> Spark was tearing up the whole band. That move was to stop the mode that was 
> interfering.
> 
> Hmm...
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

[W2XJ]

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 running then ? 
> 
> 
> Spark.
> 
> Bonnie KQ6XA
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Will You Let FCC Kill Digital Radio Technology?

[W2XJ]

In the CW portion of our bands nothing that is more than 500 hertz 
bandwidth should be allowed. Any kind of automatic transmission should 
be prohibited below 28 MHz. The petition is an attempt to prevent the 
destruction of ham radio as we know it.



expeditionradio wrote:
>>Mark WD4ELG wrote:
>>Hey Bonnie 
>>You are a digital guru, so I would appreciate it if you 
>>could educate me. ...  
>>Help me by answering these questions, so that I can make 
>>an educated comment to the FCC: 
> 
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> I will attempt to answer your questions, one by one, below:
> 
> 
>> How will this RM will KILL digital radio?  
> 
> 
> It will prevent present digital data technologies that 
> now use normal HF ham transceivers for time-division sharing 
> of frequencies. It will kill new developments of fast 
> digital technologies than enable many stations to use 
> the same frequency simultaneously. It will kill 
> all the great new types of interaction with new 
> technologies, now and in the future.
> 
> 
>>I would like to see narro bandwidth (PSK31, RTTY) modes 
>>only in the first 100 khZ segments.
> 
> 
> The FCC does not limit bandwidth of ham digital data because 
> there is still active innovation and technology being 
> invented for digital time-sharing, a technique that enables 
> many hams to use the same HF frequency to send very fast 
> data nearly simultaneously. Most other countries set 6kHz 
> (or more) as the limit. There is enough ham spectrum for all 
> of these different bandwidths to peacefully coexist. We 
> don't need a 1.5kHz bandwidth limit on all data.
> 
> 
>> Why do we let unattended operations take place? 
> 
> 
> There are no "unattended stations" in USA under FCC rules.
> All stations have control operators, by some means.
> There are "automatically controlled data stations", and 
> these stations already operate under FCC rules, and have 
> severely restricted and limited ways that they operate, 
> and special sub-bands that they operate in under the rules.
> See the FCC Automatic Data Sub-Bands chart:
> http://hflink.com/bandplans/USA_BANDCHART.jpg'
> 
> The petition seeks to send us back to the stone age of 
> ham radio digital, by eliminating all types of digital 
> data transmissions that are more than 1.5kHz bandwidth, 
> whether or not they are manual or automatic transmissions.
> 
> This will effectively kill or hobble the only 24/7 HF  
> emergency data communications services we have in USA.
> It will kill technological innovation in ham radio digital 
> data time-division digital techniques, in favor of the 20th 
> century's method of frequency-division techniques.
> 
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
> 
> Read the "Petition to Kill Digital Radio Technology" here:
> http://hflink.com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf
> 
> File your comments against "proceeding RM-11392" here:
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
> 
> Can we can get at least one hundred hams to oppose it?
> Please do your part.
>  
> 
>>>A terrible petition now at FCC USA seeks to eliminate
>>>all advanced ham radio digital data modes such as Olivia,
>>>MT63, OFDM, fast PSK, ALE, PACTOR, MFSK and others.
>>>
>>>We only have a few days, by January 1, to respond and kill it.
>>>
>>>Only you can save the future of digital radio, by
>>>your comments to FCC.
>>>It only takes a few minutes on the web.
>>>
>>>Click here, enter proceeding, RM-11392 and your commments:
>>>http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
>>>
>>>Fill in the appropriate parts of the form,
>>>then write your comments in the lower part
>>>"Send a Brief Comment to FCC (typed-in)"
>>>
>>>Here are suggested examples of comments, below.
>>>Don't let FCC kill digital data on ham radio.
>>>Don't allow USA hams to fall further behind the rest of the world.
>>>
>>>73 Bonnie KQ6XA
>>>===
>>>Feel free to copy and paste any (or all) of these into your comments.
>>>
>>>1. I oppose the RM-11392 petition by Mark A. Miller
>>>seeking to change Amateur Radio Service automatically
>>>controlled data stations and narrower bandwidths on HF.
>>>
>>>2. The RM-11392 petition is very bad for the Amateur
>>>Radio Service.
>>>
>>>3. The RM-11392 petition seeks to destroy 21st century
>>>digital data technology advancement in the Amateur Radio
>>>Service. Please do not turn back the clock on digital data
>>>to the 20th century.
>>>
>>>4. The RM-11392 petition's proposed 1.5kHz bandwidth
>>>limit on data emission is too narrow for established
>>>international standard transmissions and equipment
>>>bandwidths used by the Amateur Radio Service.
>>>
>>>5. The RM-11392 petition is an attempt to kill innovation,
>>>technology advancement, and emergency data communications
>>>in the Amateur Radio Service. Please do not let this happen.
>>>
>>>6. The FCC Amateur Radio Service's automatically controlled
>>>data sub-bands are already too narrow for the huge volume
>>>of traffic that runs on them. If a limit of 1.5kHz bandwidth
>>>is applied, it will severely hamper the abili

Re: [digitalradio] FCC: "Petition to Kill Digital Advancement"

[W2XJ]

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 national emergency SSB and CW which depend on the operator's 
ear and not external devices are the only dependable modes.



expeditionradio wrote:
> Read the "Petition to Kill Ham Radio Digital Advancements" 
> click here:
> http://hflink.com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf
> 
> File your comments against "proceeding RM-11392" 
> click here: 
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
> 
> Can we can get at least one hundred hams to oppose it?
> Please do your part.
> 
> 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
> 
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies

[W2XJ]

Those are good and insightful questions. I would not depend on the 
Internet working. While certain data centers are hardened the average 
user will not have access to those benefits. We learned in the last NYC 
black out that the telephone company is no longer maintaining generators 
and they failed in a number of places. If they are part of your back 
bone, all is lost. If you have a station associated with a large company 
(as we do) it is likely you will have a dark fiber path where the active 
points in between have redundant emergency power that works and other 
plans in effect to harden to relay points. When this infrastructure does 
work, Amateur radio is less important. When everything fails there is a 
need for the most basic communications. I am not sure about your 
location but we are basically getting CW PSK31 and RTTY at S0 to S1 due 
to the low sunspots. I would agree that if RTTY and/or PSK31 were part 
of the hardware solution in a rig they, too, would be a part of the mix. 
I consider bare bones communications to be a low power battery powered 
radio with no external infrastructure or equipment. If you subscribe to 
that model than the modes I described are the only practical ones as of now.



Rick wrote:
> Quite a few emergency planners are counting on the internet staying 
> operational except in the immediate disaster area. As an example, our 
> ARRL Section leader wants members to move all digital to Winlink 2000 
> and is focusing most resources to developing an interlinked repeater 
> system for voice and digital although I have not heard how this is being 
> done. They even have "nets" that work through Winlink 2000 since many 
> ARES members are Technician class licensees and can not operate lower 
> (NVIS) HF bands with voice or digital.
> 
> While there are fewer and fewer chances of losing telecommunications 
> infrastructure for very long, it does occur. At that point, many of 
> these systems may not function since they are based upon many things 
> continuing to work. Some of the more foresightful emergency planners 
> (not necessarily ARES/RACES) in my area, realize that even repeaters are 
> not a sure thing either and have actually done exercises over 
> multi-county distances without them.
> 
> Do you really see much of a use for CW, other than longer distance 
> messaging, perhaps via NTS? Even that is rarely done from the little 
> traffic that I tend to see coming out of disaster areas. There may or 
> may not be a simultaneous communications emergency, so that changes the 
> calculus too. Other than myself, I would be hard pressed to list any 
> other hams in my county who have at least some CW skill and are involved 
> with emergency communication.
> 
> There are several things that I want to explore in the coming year:
> 
> - whether or not the ARQ PSK modes will be competitive with ARQ ALE/FAE 
> 400. Maybe both? Maybe the developers who will be coming up with a 
> Windows version of flarq could consider other modulation waveforms?
> 
> - 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 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. When the real thing occurs and the established 
>>infrastructure fails and amateur radio is needed, you can bet it will be 
>>with basic modes.
>>
>>
>>
>>Walt DuBose wrote:
>>  
>>
>>>Sending Internet E-Mail over amateur radio frequencies has a place 
>>>especially in 
>>>emergency, disaster relief and training use or where normal communications 
>>>are 
>>>NOT available as long as its use (E-mail via amateur radio) does use 
>>>circumvent 
>>>the normal use of normal internet capabilities...I admit this paraphrased 
>>>from 
>>>the U.S. FCC Part 97 but is common sense.
>>>
>>>Do do admit that sending long files and tieing up a frequency for a long 
>>>period 
>>>of time is bad...not very amateur radio like while probably not an FCC Part 
>>>97 
>>>violation but certainly a bad operating practice.
>>>
>>>And in emergency or disaster communications you really want to make you 
>>>messages 
>>>as simple and short as possible editing forwarded messages and not attaching 
>>>large files unless absolutelly necessarly...i.e. convert MS Word files to 
>>>HTML 
>>>or better yet ASCII files where possible.
>>>
>>>73,
>>>
>>>Walt/K5YFW
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Winlink Can Be Reliable in Emergencies

[W2XJ]

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. When the real thing occurs and the established 
infrastructure fails and amateur radio is needed, you can bet it will be 
with basic modes.



Walt DuBose wrote:
> Roger J. Buffington wrote:
> 
>>Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Well,
>>>
>>>Do we really need contests, ragchewing, voice qsos, voice nets, cw
>>>qsos, cw nets, on HF? Realy it all depends on what each individual
>>>wants to do! Your millage might vary! It's a hobby OM! Each guys
>>>pleasure might be someone else's discomfort, but when an emergency
>>>arises then I think that everyone else's hobby needs must back off
>>>for a while until the emergency is over. I think this is fair! When
>>>human lives are in danger then everything else should be of a lower
>>>priority.
>>>
>>>73 de Demetre SV1UY
>>
>>
>>The contests, ragchewing, qsos, nets, etc. that you reference ARE ham 
>>radio.  Sending internet emails over the air to no purpose whatever, 
>>without even listening to see if the channel is clear, is NOT ham 
>>radio.  It is abuse, which is what Winlink mostly is.
>>
>>de Roger W6VZV
>>
>>
> 
> Sending Internet E-Mail over amateur radio frequencies has a place especially 
> in 
> emergency, disaster relief and training use or where normal communications 
> are 
> NOT available as long as its use (E-mail via amateur radio) does use 
> circumvent 
> the normal use of normal internet capabilities...I admit this paraphrased 
> from 
> the U.S. FCC Part 97 but is common sense.
> 
> Do do admit that sending long files and tieing up a frequency for a long 
> period 
> of time is bad...not very amateur radio like while probably not an FCC Part 
> 97 
> violation but certainly a bad operating practice.
> 
> And in emergency or disaster communications you really want to make you 
> messages 
> as simple and short as possible editing forwarded messages and not attaching 
> large files unless absolutelly necessarly...i.e. convert MS Word files to 
> HTML 
> or better yet ASCII files where possible.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Walt/K5YFW
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet

[W2XJ]

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
> 
> from 
> 
>>a cost and throughput level to use WiFi or higher powered WiFi with a 
>>ham license than to move to slightly higher speed packet?
> 
> 
> The 2.4 Ghz ISM band that 802.11b/802.11g WiFi uses is very
> overcrowded. Not only with WiFi signals, but tons of other stuff as well.
> 
> The 5 ghz band of 802.11a is just too high up for many applications,
> which is one of the reason why there's not much noise up there.
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] The sorry state of VHF/UHF Packet

[W2XJ]

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 somewhat problematic for digital as possible speeds are limited 
  to fairly slow compared to common Internet speeds these days. Digital 
voice is a  more interesting area for experimentation.



Rud Merriam wrote:

> The issues with packet are (1) no FEC, (2) a terrible protocol to start
> with, and (3) no inexpensive higher speed data radios available COTS.
> Because of the above it is abysmally slow and frustrating to operate.
> 
> I do have a packet station up for Winlink. 
> 
>  
> Rud Merriam K5RUD 
> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> http://TheHamNetwork.net
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: digital voice within 100 Hz bandwidth

[W2XJ]

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 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
>>filtering. One would probably need to use a very narrow band OFDM
>>scheme. It would be an interesting but do-able experiment. If it worked
>>well, it would be a very worthwhile mode.
>>
>>Patrick Lindecker wrote:
>>
>>>Hello Cesco,
>>>
>>>For information, I have tried to see if it was possible to transmit 
>>
>>a speech through a 500 Hz channel using a digital transmission. I have 
>>decomposed the audio spectrum (but not through a FFT, but by 
>>intercorrelation to choose the carriers I wanted) in several carriers 
>>and associate to each carrier a level.
>>
>>>Then I have tried to decrease the number of carriers N, the number 
>>
>>of levels L and increase to the maximum the duration of 
>>intercorrelation T (the duration of an element of a speech), up to to 
>>find a "just comprehensible speech". It's a compression of the 
>>information, up to the maximum possible. Above this limit, the speech 
>>can't be understood.
>>
>>>After that, I do the reverse operation (equivalent to a FFT-1) and 
>>
>>have not much that listening to the result.
>>
>>>At each 1/T it was necessary to send NxL elements of information, 
>>
>>which gives the final rate.
>>
>>>This way is disappointed because you need much more information that 
>>
>>you can transmit through a 500 Hz channel (for example: 23 carriers, 
>>128 levels and T=40 ms). With 23 carriers, 8 levels and T=40 ms (which 
>>can be send through a 500 Hz channel), it is very difficult to 
>>understand a (French) speech.
>>
>>>73
>>>Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>- Original Message -
>>>From: cesco12342000
>>>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>>
>><mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>
>>
>>>Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 4:26 PM
>>>Subject: [digitalradio] Re: digital voice within 100 Hz bandwidth
>>>
>>>
>>>I would be plased to have a complete list of the phonemes and 
>>
>>corresponding
>>
>>>audio files from different speakers. I fear 44 phonemes will not be 
>>
>>enough
>>
>>>to do a context-free analisis.
>>>
>>>The data rate will be closer to 200pbs i think, since you will have to
>>>transfer a magnitude component along with the phoneme index, and maybe
>>>also a pitch component. Think of the pitch raise in a question, this
>>>feature is important for understanding.
>>>
>>>The main problem will be the fft to phoneme table correlation i 
>>
>>think ...
>>
>>>but to work on this there must be a phoneme table first.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: digital voice within 100 Hz bandwidth

[W2XJ]

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 
filtering. One would probably need to use a very narrow band OFDM 
scheme. It would be an interesting but do-able experiment. If it worked 
well, it would be a very worthwhile mode.



Patrick Lindecker wrote:
> Hello Cesco,
> 
> For information, I have tried to see if it was possible to transmit a speech 
> through a 500 Hz channel using a digital transmission. I have decomposed the 
> audio spectrum (but not through a FFT, but by intercorrelation to choose the 
> carriers I wanted) in several carriers and associate to each carrier a level. 
> Then I have tried to decrease the number of carriers N, the number of levels 
> L and increase to the maximum the duration of intercorrelation T (the 
> duration of an element of a speech), up to to find a "just comprehensible 
> speech". It's a compression of the information, up to the maximum possible. 
> Above this limit, the speech can't be understood.
> After that, I do the reverse operation (equivalent to a FFT-1) and have not 
> much that listening to the result.
> 
> At each 1/T it was necessary to send NxL elements of information, which gives 
> the final rate.
> This way is disappointed because you need much more information that you can 
> transmit through a 500 Hz channel (for example: 23 carriers, 128 levels and 
> T=40 ms). With 23 carriers, 8 levels and T=40 ms (which can be send through a 
> 500 Hz channel), it is very difficult to understand a (French) speech.
> 
> 73
> Patrick
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: cesco12342000 
>   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 4:26 PM
>   Subject: [digitalradio] Re: digital voice within 100 Hz bandwidth
> 
> 
>   I would be plased to have a complete list of the phonemes and corresponding 
>   audio files from different speakers. I fear 44 phonemes will not be enough 
>   to do a context-free analisis.
> 
>   The data rate will be closer to 200pbs i think, since you will have to 
>   transfer a magnitude component along with the phoneme index, and maybe 
>   also a pitch component. Think of the pitch raise in a question, this 
>   feature is important for understanding.
> 
>   The main problem will be the fft to phoneme table correlation i think ... 
>   but to work on this there must be a phoneme table first. 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: [digitalradio] Digital Voice Repeaters on HF

[W2XJ]

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 hear all lone on the high bands (due to  its power and 
> antennas) shows us this as well.  I..e., what we assume is no 
> communications may in fact be just very noisy.
> 
> Shannon tells us there is no limit to the S/N we can tolerate if we 
> reduce the data rate.
> 
> So there may be a place as well for a repeater that receives lower-power 
> stations slowly and retransmits them as higher power faster, even though 
> it it couldn't then do the clever interleave that Bonnie proposes for 
> other situations.
> 
> This idea would be somewhat like VHF FM repeaters, as they use the 
> limiting feature of FM to discriminate a noise-free low-power signal and 
> then retransmit.  Instead, it would decode a low baud rate, ECC'd signal 
> to obtain a noiseless signal to re-encode and retransmit.
> 
> Leigh/WA5ZNU
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 3:22 am, bruce mallon wrote:
> 
>>Then DO IT and let the FCC rule .
>>
>>Just remember for your long distance digipeaters to
>>work the band must be open .
>>unless your going to use ECHOLINK and if so whats the
>>point ?
>>
>>
>>--- expeditionradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Like many kinds of interesting digital
>>> communications, it seems that
>>> this sort of digital repeater falls into the gray
>>> area of FCC rules.
>>> The "retransmit" rules may preclude it. Welcome to
>>> Technology Jail.
>>> Nothing should stop an operator in another country
>>> from setting one
>>> up, it it could be used by US operators.
>>>
>>> Bonnie KQ6XA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > This type of single channel HF digital voice
>>> repeater is perfectly OK
>>> > under USA's present FCC rules, and the rules of
>>> most other countries.
>>> >
>>> > Bonnie KQ6XA
>>> >
>>> > > > Digital Voice repeaters, using single-channel
>>> > > > near-real-time
>>> > > > interleaved multiplexed OFDM, could work in a
>>> 5kHz
>>> > > > bandwidth.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Pinpoint
>> 
>>customers who are looking for what you sell.
>>http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
>>
>>
>>Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
>>http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Digital Voice Repeaters on HF

[W2XJ]

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 that would mean some sort of 
PL or DTMF tones would be required to prevent the system from keying on 
undesired signals.




Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> So, , how would one actually "repeat"  a signal ?
> 
> Andy
>