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

[John B. Stephensen]

The FCC will say that it up to each licensee to check the legality by reading 
the new technical specification. Unless someone shows that the spectrum doesn't 
match the specification U.S.hams should feel safe using ROS.

73,

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: Dave Ackrill 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 17:31 UTC
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] There is a pattern in the ROS signal when idling



  KH6TY wrote:
  > Looks like good news Steinar! If the data changes the frequencies, it 
  > does not qualify as FHSS as Jose originally claimed. I am sure the FCC 
  > will find the same during their tests and expect them to say it can be 
  > used on HF and VHF.

  When they do, please let me know so that I can let people over here who 
  have only read the 'it's illegal in the USA' message know.

  Thanks - Dave (G0DJA)


  

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

[Steinar Aanesland]

Hi Skip

First ,  I have read all of your mail's and I think you have argued fair
and square.
I can't tell if ROS is FHSS or not . This is to complicate for a country
boy like me, but  I really hope that  FCC will let you use "narrow band
" SS on HF some day .

Cross my fingers for you and 73
LA5VNA Steinar


 
 


On 27.02.2010 18:21, KH6TY wrote:
> Looks like good news Steinar! If the data changes the frequencies, it
> does not qualify as FHSS as Jose originally claimed. I am sure the FCC
> will find the same during their tests and expect them to say it can be
> used on HF and VHF. I am especially interested in being able to use
> the 1 baud mode for EME on 2m and right now, FHSS is not permitted
> below 222 MHz. However, we will have to wait for the FCC to issue a
> new opinion, since they already issued one based on Jose's original
> claims.
>
> 73 - Skip KH6TY
>
>
>
>
> Steinar Aanesland wrote:
>>  
>>
>>
>> Hi Skip
>>
>> Here is the new ROS signal. It is idling with two gruops of 25 sec of
>> X's . As you can see the pattern change when sending data.
>>
>> http://home.broadpark.no/~saanes/bilder/ROS_X_2.JPG
>> 
>>
>> 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
>>
>> On 27.02.2010 13:19, 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
>> >
>>
>>
>

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

[Dave Ackrill]

KH6TY wrote:
> Looks like good news Steinar! If the data changes the frequencies, it 
> does not qualify as FHSS as Jose originally claimed. I am sure the FCC 
> will find the same during their tests and expect them to say it can be 
> used on HF and VHF.

When they do, please let me know so that I can let people over here who 
have only read the 'it's illegal in the USA' message know.

Thanks - Dave (G0DJA)

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

[KH6TY]

Looks like good news Steinar! If the data changes the frequencies, it 
does not qualify as FHSS as Jose originally claimed. I am sure the FCC 
will find the same during their tests and expect them to say it can be 
used on HF and VHF. I am especially interested in being able to use the 
1 baud mode for EME on 2m and right now, FHSS is not permitted below 222 
MHz. However, we will have to wait for the FCC to issue a new opinion, 
since they already issued one based on Jose's original claims.


73 - Skip KH6TY




Steinar Aanesland wrote:
 



Hi Skip

Here is the new ROS signal. It is idling with two gruops of 25 sec of
X's . As you can see the pattern change when sending data.

http://home.broadpark.no/~saanes/bilder/ROS_X_2.JPG 



73 de LA5VNA Steinar

On 27.02.2010 13:19, 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
>

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

[Steinar Aanesland]

Hi Skip

Here is the new ROS signal. It is idling with two gruops of 25 sec of
X's . As you can see the pattern change when sending data.

http://home.broadpark.no/~saanes/bilder/ROS_X_2.JPG

73 de LA5VNA Steinar






On 27.02.2010 13:19, 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
>

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

[KH6TY]

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.
>
> “/If/ it walks /like a duck/, quacks /like a duck/, /looks like a
> duck/, it must be a /duck/”.
>
> It looks like ROS really is FHSS when you look at it on a spectrum
> analyzer, and the spectrum analyzer does not lie.
>
> 73 - Skip KH6TY
>
>
>