RE: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions

[Lester Veenstra]

And the mis-information continues:  I did not state that Spread Spectrum
does  comprise a means of encrypting.

 

 

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 W2XJ
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:43 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions

 

  

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 300–3000 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

[digitalradio] New question

[Rein A]

Noticed this statement in a report of an exchange with a custom
agent at FCC:

"ROS is not "Spread Spectrum" because the 3khz HF standard channel is
maintained. Other modes like MT63, Olivia o[r] Contestia use similar
techniques."

I do not know who wrote it.

What is the problem with it?

73 Rein W6SZ

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

[Alan Barrow]

KH6TY wrote:
>
>
> Alan,
>
> What happens, for example, if 100 DSSS stations are all on at the same
> time, on the same beginning and ending frequencies, because everyone
> assumes his presence at any one frequency is too short to be noticed?
>
> Will they interfere with each other, or will they collectively
> interfere with other users of the frequency, such as SSB stations?

All valid questions. You know the answer to most of them.

DSSS without CDMA, hold off, etc would neither work or be desired beyond
a certain "loading" (number of users).
> When you say "multiple" how many would that be with a spreading factor
> of 100?

Like you, I'd have to dig out the math, make some assumptions. There is
an answer, and it's greater than 1, and less than 100 for sure. :-)

Based on very rough math, and fuzzy assumptions, my initial calcs were
that it would take over 10 simultaneous DSSS to be detectable at psk
data rates with a spreading factor of 100.

More than that to be interference to a typical SSB signal. Remember,
just because a chip wanders into an SSB bandwidth slot does not mean it
will interfere with an SSB signal due to SSB filtering, response curves,
etc.   That bit in the bottom 50 hz of an SSB slot will not be detected.
Likewise those in the "guard bands" between typical SSB signal spacing.

Likewise, since the energy is widely distributed there are no
significant sidebands that are much easier to detect/hear and become
interference.

But that was just a concept thrown out to make people realize that all
DSSS is not like ROS. Nor like the high data rate strong signal DSSS
seen on higher bands.

We need to separate the concept from the flawed implementation, that's
my point. I do believe in the future we will want to revisit DSSS with
CDMA as an alternative to the chaos of RTTY/WINMOR/P3/ALE/SSTV/whatever
we have now. Not to the exclusion of legacy weak signal modes. But as a
more efficient way to maximize throughput (users * data of any type) of
the very limited HF resource we have.

We'd have to do the math, but I'm pretty confident that for any chunk of
bandwidth (say, 20khz or greater) you could support more simultaneous
users at a given data rate with DSSS or similar wideband mode with CDMA
than the same chunk with SSB afsk modems. It's simply more efficient,
does not have the guard band issues, etc.

It will never happen in our lifetimes due to the hold that legacy modes
have. With some justification. But that does not mean we should paint
ourselves into a corner where it could never be discussed, much less
proposed.
>
> It seems to me that enough chips randomly spread over the band (by
> enough multiple stations) could also raise the general noise level,
> even if they were very weak. This was a concern of weak signal operators.

This is true and valid for weak signal areas. It's not for strong signal
modes. Even including SSB, and you could do much in between FM channels
with minimal impact to FM qso's. There's nothing that states DSSS has to
be evenly spread across it's range, though it helps with processor gain.
You could have a sequence that only hit the guard bands between 10m FM
channels for example.

> For example, suppose it was decided to let multiple DSSS stations span
> the whole length of the 20m phone band so there was sufficient
> spreading. How many on the air at one time would it take to create
> noticeable QRM to SSB phone stations, or raise the noise background if
> they were on VHF?

There would have to be CDMA of some form. But the answer is still more
than one, less than many. You are still only using the net bandwidth
even when spread. IE: You are not truly using 50khz just because the
signal is spread across that range. Because you are not using it
exclusively. It's only when many, many users were active simultaneously
that it would reach interference levels. Likewise, the SSB signals would
surface as bit errors to the DSSS, so throughput would go down when it
was crowded with SSB signals.
> I ask this because I believe that the question arose several years ago
> regarding allowing hi-speed multimedia to operate over 20 kHz on 20m,
> which may be OK for one station, but what happens if there are 100
> stations doing the same thing?

High speed wide band is different than widely spread DSSS. It would
absolutely interfere with anything in that bandwidth, sounding like
white noise.

But similar questions pop up. Given 20 khz would typically handle 5-6
SSB signals with guardbands, could you beat the throughput with that one
20khz signal? Add CDMA, and would that channel carry more traffic than
the 5-6 SSB signals with P3? (Currently the ham legal throughput leader)

There are tradeoffs with multi-path, fading, etc. long/short symbol
lengths. None are perfect. But our current approach is not either. :-)

I'm not in favor of plopping hi-fi audio or multimedia wide band signals
in 20m SSB space. But do I think there should be options to experiment
(tightly controlled) with a CD

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

[KH6TY]

On 7/13/2010 4:34 PM, W2XJ wrote:



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.


By what authority do you claim to know that the FCC did not make any 
analysis? That is in direct conflict with what I was told by a member of 
the group that did the analysis.


Skip KH6TY


,___

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

[KH6TY]

Alan,

What happens, for example, if 100 DSSS stations are all on at the same 
time, on the same beginning and ending frequencies, because everyone 
assumes his presence at any one frequency is too short to be noticed?


Will they interfere with each other, or will they collectively interfere 
with other users of the frequency, such as SSB stations?


When you say "multiple" how many would that be with a spreading factor 
of 100?


It seems to me that enough chips randomly spread over the band (by 
enough multiple stations) could also raise the general noise level, even 
if they were very weak. This was a concern of weak signal operators.


For example, suppose it was decided to let multiple DSSS stations span 
the whole length of the 20m phone band so there was sufficient 
spreading. How many on the air at one time would it take to create 
noticeable QRM to SSB phone stations, or raise the noise background if 
they were on VHF?


I ask this because I believe that the question arose several years ago 
regarding allowing hi-speed multimedia to operate over 20 kHz on 20m, 
which may be OK for one station, but what happens if there are 100 
stations doing the same thing?


If there are enough randomly dispersed chips, won't they eventually fill 
the entire area with if there are enough of them?


I studied communications theory and auto-correlation functions, etc., 50 
years ago in college, but unfortunately I don't remember much of it at all!


73, Skip KH6TY

On 7/13/2010 8:15 PM, Alan Barrow wrote:


W2XJ wrote:
>
>
> It is generally accepted that 10 times bandwidth is the minimum
> necessary to achieve enough processing gain to make the use of SS
> worthwhile.

Not only is it not worth doing, it also increased chances of
interference. I'm not aware of any weak signal DSSS using spreading
factors of less than 100. The lowest I've seen is 16 for consumer strong
signal wide band stuff. And that's just due to economics, not for
performance.

Take that same psk'ish data rate, use a more conventional spreading
factor of 128, and you could see decent weak signal performance due to
processor gain, and most likely not impact strong signal legacy modes in
the same band segment.

Of course, you could not do this with an audio SSB approach. But you
could certainly decode it with SDR, which is why we should not throw out
the baby with the bathwater.

Remember, ROS somewhat sucked because it's spreading was so small there
was a large likelihood of any given bit interfering with another weak
signal.

Spread that out, and it's only the individual "chips" (fraction of a
data bit) that is on any given frequency at any given time.

Put another way, you could probably run multiple DSSS signals at psk
data rates in the SSB (voice) sub-bands with minimal impact to existing
qso's if spread like conventional DSSS. You could see the impact on a
properly setup monitor, but realistically the SSB stations would not
detect the chips in their slot.

Not that I'm proposing we do so, just that we need to fully understand
the technology, it's potential advantages & impacts before we throw it 
out.


All that said, I'm not expecting to see any SS on HF by hams in the next
decade or two. I view it as a lost cause and we'll just learn to deal
with the beeps & bloops from advance digital modes from non-amateur
services on our shared bands.

Have fun,

Alan
km4ba

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

[Dave AA6YQ]

When a regulation is based on a vague phrase like "using bandwidth-expansion
modulation emissions", the FCC should *expect* to hear from amateurs trying
to determine whether or not a mode is legal. There are certainly many
situations where amateurs can indeed be expected to "sort it out
themselves"; this isn't one of them.

73,

 Dave, AA6YQ

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of W2XJ
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:35 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: [digital radio] Re: Random data vs Spread
Spectrum



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 RO

Re: [digitalradio] Digital modes other than ROS

[rein0zn]

ROS does not work?

Is that your point?

And they are legal, Ros is Not

73 Rein W6SZ


-Original Message-
>From: Jeff Moore 
>Sent: Jul 13, 2010 7:10 PM
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digital modes other than ROS
>
>What about them?  They all work.
>
>Jeff  --  KE7ACY
>
>- Original Message - From: Rein A 
>What about all these modes?
>
>http://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/radio-sounds.html
>
>( Answer : It never was asked? 
>
>It is called "Selfregulation" by the radio amateur community
>
>73 Rein W6SZ
>
>

[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

[Dave AA6YQ]

The definition of Spread Spectrum in 97.3(c)8 rests on the phrase "using
bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions". This clearly lacks the technical
precision required

- for digital mode developers to know what techniques can and can not be
incorporated in modes used by US stations (e.g. pseudo-random coding, as
Alan points out below)

- for US digital mode users to determine if and on what frequencies an
accurately-documented mode can be used

A constructive response to the Ros debacle would be to propose improved
language for 97.3(c)8 that is clear and unambiguous. Assuming the proposed
definition does not increase the likelihood of causing harmful interference
or permit encrypted communications (concerns implicit in 97.311), the FCC
would likely welcome a change that improves our ability to abide by the
regulations without consuming their scarce resources.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ



-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of Alan Barrow
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:22 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum



graham787 wrote:
> So, if bits are added to the transmit waveform that are not performing a
function of helping to re-create an error free replication of the input
data, it meets my test as spread spectrum. If the symbols in the transmit
waveform cannot be predicted by the previous sequence of bits over time at
the input, it also would meet my test as spread spectrum. To reiterate on
this point, just because the symbols of the transmit waveform are changing
during an unchanging input, does not imply spread spectrum.
>
> Instead, they may well be the result of a defined randomizer process
followed by multiple layers of FEC and modulation coding.
>

While I do not support ROS in any form, I think the group is on a very
slippery slope here with well intentioned but misinformed definitions &
tests that may haunt us in the future!

Just the fact that data is randomized does not define SS. There has to
be a spreading factor, which has some rough definitions based on
practical applications, but is not addressed in any FCC definitions.

Skip's well intentioned but overly simplistic test of looking at the bit
stream is not enough to define SS. There are many legitimate reasons to
code data resulting in a pseudo-random fashion that have nothing to do
with SS!

The most common is coding so the transitions between bit's can easily be
detected even in noise. It's a problem when sequential bits look the same.

You can also factor in FEC. There are many, many writeups on
convolutional encoding that go into this. (Viterbi & reed-solomon are in
wide usage)

But it's also useful to spread the energy out in the bandwidth and avoid
sidebands created by single tones of long duration. There are multiple
modem/modes which do this, some in very wide usage.

So yes, SS (really DSSS) is pseudo-random. But not all pseudo-random
coding is SS, and we should not be proposing that as a litmus test!

The real test should be:
- direct or BPSK modulation via a pseudo-random code in addition to any
coding for FEC (convolutional, etc)
- A spreading factor significantly higher than the original data rate

The 2nd item is the key part, and it's listed but virtually never quoted
in this group, but is listed in nearly all the SS definitions. Nor is it
addressed in the FCC part 97 rules.

It's not enough that the bandwidth is higher than the data rate would
imply, as nearly all modes with FEC would fail that by definition.

The key is the "significantly wider" aspect, also referred to in
ITU/IEEE definitions as "typically orders of magnitude greater than the
data rate". And this is why many engineers question whether any SSB
generated mode could be "real" SS. ROS only did it by having the
original data rate lower than the SSB bandwidth.

About the lowest commercial DSSS implementations use a spreading factor
of 16:1, and that's for consumer grade without noise performance concerns.

Most DSSS implementations in the real world use spreading factors of 100
or greater, as that's when you start seeing significant noise recovery
improvements.

In DSSS, the "processor gain" which improves noise resilience is
directly related to the spreading factor.

I've posted multiple definitions from the ITU & IEEE in the past for
DSSS. Wikipedia, which has some good information, does not constitute a
formal definition like the ITU & IEEE references do. (Part of the reason
that wikipedia is not admissible as sources for college & research papers).

There is no shortage of formal definitions, we should not have to invent
our own. There are also some very readable definitions from mfg's for
their DSSS components. Like this one:
< http://www.maxim-ic.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/1890 >

So ROS (RIP) is very odd in this aspect, as it's nowhere near
conventional DSSS implementations in it's spreading factor, yet is
higher than t

Re: [digitalradio] Digital modes other than ROS

[rein0zn]

-Original Message-
>From: Jeff Moore 
>Sent: Jul 13, 2010 7:10 PM
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digital modes other than ROS
>
>What about them?  They all work.
>
>Jeff  --  KE7ACY
>
>- Original Message - From: Rein A 
>What about all these modes?
>
>http://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/radio-sounds.html
>
>( Answer : It never was asked? 
>
>It is called "Selfregulation" by the radio amateur community
>
>73 Rein W6SZ
>
>

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

[Alan Barrow]

W2XJ wrote:
>
>
> It is generally accepted that 10 times bandwidth is the minimum
> necessary to achieve enough processing gain to make the use of SS
> worthwhile.

Not only is it not worth doing, it also increased chances of
interference. I'm not aware of any weak signal DSSS using spreading
factors of less than 100. The lowest I've seen is 16 for consumer strong
signal wide band stuff. And that's just due to economics, not for
performance.

Take that same psk'ish data rate, use a more conventional spreading
factor of 128, and you could see decent weak signal performance due to
processor gain, and most likely not impact strong signal legacy modes in
the same band segment.

Of course, you could not do this with an audio SSB approach. But you
could certainly decode it with SDR, which is why we should not throw out
the baby with the bathwater.

Remember, ROS somewhat sucked because it's spreading was so small there
was a large likelihood of any given bit interfering with another weak
signal.

Spread that out, and it's only the individual "chips" (fraction of a
data bit) that is on any given frequency at any given time.

Put another way, you could probably run multiple DSSS signals at psk
data rates in the SSB (voice) sub-bands with minimal impact to existing
qso's if spread like conventional DSSS. You could see the impact on a
properly setup monitor, but realistically the SSB stations would not
detect the chips in their slot.

Not that I'm proposing we do so, just that we need to fully understand
the technology, it's potential advantages & impacts before we throw it out.

All that said, I'm not expecting to see any SS on HF by hams in the next
decade or two. I view it as a lost cause and we'll just learn to deal
with the beeps & bloops from advance digital modes from non-amateur
services on our shared bands.

Have fun,

Alan
km4ba

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

[Alan Barrow]

g4ilo wrote:
> I don't know if that is a dig at one of the arguments I have made in the past,

Certainly not directed at you as an individual. I just feel that things
like sustained throughput which includes the effect of FEC & processor
gain in the case of SS need to be included.

So it's not as simple as 2.2khz bandwidth divided by 128 bps as a figure
of merit.

Skip's testing did show that for it's 2.2khz bandwidth, ROS was not the
leader in throughput.

What will never be known is if multiple ROS signals could have shared
that bandwidth without interference, or if it could have lived in large
signal (SSB, FM, etc) areas without interference.

>  but I do believe that 2.25kHz ROS was too wide for our existing HF bands. 
> Regardless of the merits or otherwise of a mode, people can't go on inventing 
> new modes unless they can also come up with a place for them to be used that 
> doesn't squeeze out existing users. 
Here we disagree somewhat. I would mostly agree for areas like 40m,
especially if multiple channels were used like ROS did. But I don't
agree that a new & otherwise legal mode that is SSB width should be
excluded just because the bands can be crowded.

If we followed your recommendations, SSB, SSTV, PSK, all the digital
modes, etc would never have been allowed to be used.

This is not to be construed that the approach the ROS implementor took
was a model of how things should proceed!

> the chances of finding 2.25kHz of 20m unoccupied are pretty slim at any time.
>   

If the mode is otherwise legal, it's up to the operator to find a hole
to operate. That's not a matter for legislation. :-)

Personally, I think we missed a chance to see what could be done with an
AFSK based SS approach in the wider & less used bands. Test in the
strong signal areas, where interference to legacy modes would be minimal.

Maybe DSSS between the FM frequencies on 10m where there would not be
interference to each other. Use a wider spreading sequence to increase
processor gain (and improve noise performance). Add in a CDMA approach
to allow multiple users in the same slots.

There are many possibilities which could be explored.

If your point is that 3 SSB width slots in the crowded 40m data section
was not appropriate, I agree! Other bands? Not so sure. :-)

Have fun,

Alan
km4ba

Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions

[Alan Barrow]

bg...@comcast.net wrote:
> [Attachment(s) <#TopText> from bg...@comcast.net included below]
>
>
> Delighted I am to find the 1998 version of 47CFR97.311 on the GPO
> website, attached.
> We are both maybe correct.
>
> The FCC prescribed the method, the operator filled in the variables,
> which he kept in a log and logged it every time s/he changed a variable.

Yep, I agree!

Your information is newer, but very much follows the intent of the FCC
expressed for the interactions I was aware of.

I found their approach quite reasonable.

There are those who assume any mode they cannot copy with free software
is "encrypted" and illegal, and that is for sure not the case as well.
There was a separate ruling on that one if I recall.

Have fun,

Alan
km4ba

Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions [1 Attachment]

[bgrly]

Delighted I am to find the 1998 version of 47CFR97.311 on the GPO website, 
attached. 
We are both maybe correct. 

The FCC prescribed the method, the operator filled in the variables, which he 
kept in a log and logged it every time s/he changed a variable. 


- Original Message - 
From: "Alan Barrow"  
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:03:01 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions 

bg...@comcast.net wrote: 
> 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. 

This is absolutely not the case. 

I know from first hand experience that all you have to do is be prepared 
to present any coding sequence upon demand. And that coding (viterbi, 
pseudo-random, whatever) does not constitute encryption to the FCC's. 

This was resolved back in the early packet days and the WA4DSY 56k modems. 

This is true of many of the other modes/modems. And was also ruled upon 
by the FCC due to challenges by the anti-Pactor crowd. 

Have fun, 

Alan 
km4ba 


 

http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html 
Chat, Skeds, and "Spots" all in one (resize to suit) 

Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522 

Yahoo! Groups Links 

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

[rein0zn]

Very well stated, separate questions.

73 Rein W6SZ

-Original Message-
>From: "J. Moen" 
>Sent: Jul 13, 2010 6:37 PM
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
>
>This question of bandwidth for various modes and where to squeeze in the wider 
>modes is a good topic.  Reminds me of the folks who really like enhanced 
>fidelity SSB (3.5 out to nearly 5 kHz), or AM.  There are many bands at 
>certain times of day that have lots of space for those modes, but I'd hope 
>those hams would be kind to the rest of us, for example during a contest or 
>when certain bands are chock-full.  I think if 3 kHz SSB is ok, that 2.25 kHz 
>modes (ROS as an example) should be ok, as long as the frequencies chosen are 
>prudent for the band and time of time.  That discussion is entirely separate 
>from the US legal questions about SS modes on HF.
>
>  Jim - K6JM
>
>  - Original Message - 
>  From: g4ilo 
>  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>  Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:35 PM
>  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
>
>  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Barrow  wrote:
>  >
>  > - Simplistic bandwidth comparisons that do not factor in total
>  > throughput. (IE: The effect of processor gain, FEC, etc). I don't think
>  > ROS was stellar here, but the idea that a wider mode for X data rate is
>  > worse than a narrower mode is flawed. Otherwise we'd all be using RTTY.
>  > FEC increases bandwidth for the same data rate, but the trade off
>  > surfaces over sustained measurement in real (difficult) HF conditions.
>  > Skip's work did show there was not a big win for ROS, so we arrived at
>  > the right spot. But many were banning just because it was wider than
>  > their favorite mode!
>
>  I don't know if that is a dig at one of the arguments I have made in the 
> past, but I do believe that 2.25kHz ROS was too wide for our existing HF 
> bands. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of a mode, people can't go on 
> inventing new modes unless they can also come up with a place for them to be 
> used that doesn't squeeze out existing users. Even three channels was 
> patently inadequate for the number of users wishing to use ROS with the 
> result that most of the contacts made, as evidenced by the spots posted here, 
> were anything but weak signal DX as the chances of finding 2.25kHz of 20m 
> unoccupied are pretty slim at any time.
>
>  Julian, G4ILO

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

[J. Moen]

This question of bandwidth for various modes and where to squeeze in the wider 
modes is a good topic.  Reminds me of the folks who really like enhanced 
fidelity SSB (3.5 out to nearly 5 kHz), or AM.  There are many bands at certain 
times of day that have lots of space for those modes, but I'd hope those hams 
would be kind to the rest of us, for example during a contest or when certain 
bands are chock-full.  I think if 3 kHz SSB is ok, that 2.25 kHz modes (ROS as 
an example) should be ok, as long as the frequencies chosen are prudent for the 
band and time of time.  That discussion is entirely separate from the US legal 
questions about SS modes on HF.

  Jim - K6JM

  - Original Message - 
  From: g4ilo 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:35 PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Barrow  wrote:
  >
  > - Simplistic bandwidth comparisons that do not factor in total
  > throughput. (IE: The effect of processor gain, FEC, etc). I don't think
  > ROS was stellar here, but the idea that a wider mode for X data rate is
  > worse than a narrower mode is flawed. Otherwise we'd all be using RTTY.
  > FEC increases bandwidth for the same data rate, but the trade off
  > surfaces over sustained measurement in real (difficult) HF conditions.
  > Skip's work did show there was not a big win for ROS, so we arrived at
  > the right spot. But many were banning just because it was wider than
  > their favorite mode!

  I don't know if that is a dig at one of the arguments I have made in the 
past, but I do believe that 2.25kHz ROS was too wide for our existing HF bands. 
Regardless of the merits or otherwise of a mode, people can't go on inventing 
new modes unless they can also come up with a place for them to be used that 
doesn't squeeze out existing users. Even three channels was patently inadequate 
for the number of users wishing to use ROS with the result that most of the 
contacts made, as evidenced by the spots posted here, were anything but weak 
signal DX as the chances of finding 2.25kHz of 20m unoccupied are pretty slim 
at any time.

  Julian, G4ILO

[digitalradio] using ROS in the USA

[David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD]

I have learned much by following the ROS/USA Cluster F.

I see there is a plausible out for those of us wishing
to use the software.

It appears that all the sub-modes in the ROS software are
not SS.  I am not that good an engineer to decide for myself
so here am asking all, which of the sub modes are OK ?

david/wd4kpd

-- 
God's law is set in stone : everything else is negotiable

Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions

[rein0zn]

OK does ROS encrypt or not?

I though if something was encrypted one would need some
means provided to a limited group, to allow and enable 
them to decode the message. Do we have that in ROS?

We need the complete package receiving  part included.

Does the transmitting station provide us with such a key
every time?
Does Jose ROS perhaps e-mails it to us?? And when the day
comes he will not do that any longer?

At the beginning of a QSO?
At the beginning of a transmission?
Ever? Never?

I know it would be so much easier if Jose told us these points!
And many have said this before

Just asking questions that are relevant heaving seen comments here on
this board over the last couple of months, concerning SS

73 Rein W6SZ

-Original Message-
>From: W2XJ 
>Sent: Jul 13, 2010 4:42 PM
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions
>
>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

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

[rein0zn]

Julian

I apologize up front, but I do not believe you monitor the bands
even the CW sections with a sdr ( wide waterfall ) display.

If do did this, your monitor is defective, I am sorry!

   Watching 40 meter or 30 m or 20 m from a spot in the Eastern
part of the Netherlands:

http://websdr.ewi.utwente.nl:8901/

it can't look much different on the other side of the North Sea.

Frequency allocations is a matter of the IARU of whoever. Perhaps 
these days the European Government over there.

So this argument/anti ROS reason does no carry the day. Is it
up to Mr Ros to assign ROS frequencies as a little Dictator?
NO

But it has Nothing to do with ROS being legal in the US or where ever.

73 Rein W6SZ



   



-Original Message-
>From: g4ilo 
>Sent: Jul 13, 2010 9:35 PM
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
>
>
>
>--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Barrow  wrote:
>>
>> - Simplistic bandwidth comparisons that do not factor in total
>> throughput. (IE: The effect of processor gain, FEC, etc). I don't think
>> ROS was stellar here, but the idea that a wider mode for X data rate is
>> worse than a narrower mode is flawed. Otherwise we'd all be using RTTY.
>> FEC increases bandwidth for the same data rate, but the trade off
>> surfaces over sustained measurement in real (difficult) HF conditions.
>> Skip's work did show there was not a big win for ROS, so we arrived at
>> the right spot. But many were banning just because it was wider than
>> their favorite mode!
>
>I don't know if that is a dig at one of the arguments I have made in the past, 
>but I do believe that 2.25kHz ROS was too wide for our existing HF bands. 
>Regardless of the merits or otherwise of a mode, people can't go on inventing 
>new modes unless they can also come up with a place for them to be used that 
>doesn't squeeze out existing users. Even three channels was patently 
>inadequate for the number of users wishing to use ROS with the result that 
>most of the contacts made, as evidenced by the spots posted here, were 
>anything but weak signal DX as the chances of finding 2.25kHz of 20m 
>unoccupied are pretty slim at any time.
>
>Julian, G4ILO
>
>
>
>
>
>http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html
>Chat, Skeds, and "Spots" all in one (resize to suit)
>
>Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

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

[rein0zn]

So 10 times is not a property of SS. Yes

73 Rein W6SZ

-Original Message-
>From: W2XJ 
>Sent: Jul 13, 2010 8:46 PM
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
>
>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
>>  
>>
>> 
>> 
>

[digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

[g4ilo]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Barrow  wrote:
>
> - Simplistic bandwidth comparisons that do not factor in total
> throughput. (IE: The effect of processor gain, FEC, etc). I don't think
> ROS was stellar here, but the idea that a wider mode for X data rate is
> worse than a narrower mode is flawed. Otherwise we'd all be using RTTY.
> FEC increases bandwidth for the same data rate, but the trade off
> surfaces over sustained measurement in real (difficult) HF conditions.
> Skip's work did show there was not a big win for ROS, so we arrived at
> the right spot. But many were banning just because it was wider than
> their favorite mode!

I don't know if that is a dig at one of the arguments I have made in the past, 
but I do believe that 2.25kHz ROS was too wide for our existing HF bands. 
Regardless of the merits or otherwise of a mode, people can't go on inventing 
new modes unless they can also come up with a place for them to be used that 
doesn't squeeze out existing users. Even three channels was patently inadequate 
for the number of users wishing to use ROS with the result that most of the 
contacts made, as evidenced by the spots posted here, were anything but weak 
signal DX as the chances of finding 2.25kHz of 20m unoccupied are pretty slim 
at any time.

Julian, G4ILO

[digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

[Rein A]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for responding in spite of everything!

"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."

( I know this may cost me my license if I have to believe some
contributors here. )

I have just big problems with this statement. You will not help
me getting to the bottom of this  A couple of months ago I emailed and
asked friendly the person, that could have answered me ( Absolutely
sure on this ) to allow me to ask a few questions ( did not mention the ROS 
subject )

Also, I just can't buy your statement that the FCC communicates
via ARRL. ( But is has no bearing on this )

I did not notice  or missed an answer for whatever reason.

I got the name an email address from lets say a person that knows
Washington and he wrote me that since President Obama is in office
e-mail is used a lot...

I really do not want to go into details. If you like to know I can
supply you the details off this board.

I am not addressing the no-reply result. The person in question 
could receive 100's of messages a day. And I was too polite and did
not state a subject.

I click some 250 messages away every day here and sometimes make 
mistakes in clicking an important one.


Not stating the real subject might have caused this, could be. Mot
blaming anybody just myself, for wasting an potential opportunity.

The time of this person is valuable.

73 Rein W6SZ


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 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

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] Contestia Digital Mode Freqs

[Jon Maguire]

Hi Thomas,

Long time no chat!! I hope all is well with you and yours. I've finally 
put up a couple of dipoles, 90% of the work done by my son-in-law. The 
only thing that remains is get the coax cables into the house. The way 
the house is layed out, it won't be trivial, but I am working on it. 
Once I get connected, let's try some of these exotic modes on 80, 40 or 
30M. I know that we tried 10M with no luck, but we should have better 
luck on the lower bands with ground waves. These antennas are real cloud 
burners, NVIS, so Brandon to Lakeland should be easy (I hope). Let me 
know what you think.

73... jon W1MNK

On 7/12/2010 11:49 AM, Thomas F. Giella NZ4O wrote:
> Contestia is one of the few "mainstream" digital modes that I have not
> worked. Where should I look for QSO's frequency wise?
>
> 73&  GUD DX,
> Thomas F. Giella, NZ4O
> Lakeland, FL, USA
> n...@tampabay.rr.com
>
> PODXS 070 Club #349
> Feld Hell Club #141
> 30 Meter Digital Group #691
> Digital Modes Club #1243
> WARC Bands Century Club #20
>
> NZ4O Amateur&  SWL Autobiography: http://www.nz4o.org
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html
> Chat, Skeds, and "Spots" all in one (resize to suit)
>
> Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>





http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html
Chat, Skeds, and "Spots" all in one (resize to suit)

Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522

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] 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 
> 
>  
>
> 
> 

[digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

[Rein A]

Hello Alan,

Thank you much for your reply.

To tell the truth, I did not subscribe  to this group in those
beginning days ( posted only om ROSMODEM )

It is so sad, that because of the noise, anti ROS biases, agenda's intelligent 
exchanges are just about impossible, pro and con.
( IMHO )

Every tine I think to understand why ROS is illegal a couple of days
later, I am getting confused.

-Bandwidth.
-The real properties of FHSS
-Is WSJT FHSS?" Why , why not.
-Why is WSJT65C legal ( just a rhetorical question )
-Is wide band Oliv1a FHSS Why, why not.
-Being in public domain.
-Specs published.
-FCC and others able to monitor content.
-ROS transmitted signals not the same from one transmission to 
another for same message
-ROS transmitting while idling
-Oversold by am young(?) software engineer not being familiar with US rules.  
Just to name a few.

It is of course because of my limited intelligence, that is clear

73 Rein W6SZ

  
> worse than a narrower mode is flawed. Otherwise we'd all be using RTTY.
> FEC increases bandwidth for the same data rate, but the trade off
> surfaces over sustained measurement in real (difficult) HF conditions.
> Skip's work did show there was not a big win for ROS, so we arrived at
> the right spot. But many were banning just because it was wider than
> their favorite mode!
> 
> - Lack of consideration that multiple SS signals could occupy the same
> spectrum, effectively decreasing the total required bandwidth. There is
> a point of diminishing returns, and ROS may not fare well. But if I
> could stack a dozen or more data signals simultaneously in a single SSB
> width slot, would that be a bad thing? Or what if a AF type SS (AFSS?)
> mode could live on a non-interference basis, should it be banned just
> because it was technically SS? No testing was done that I'm aware of
> that would have allowed real world throughput to be measured with
> multiple signals on the same channel. This is one of the big wins of DSSS!
> 
> - Assumption that the current FCC reg is the end all. It was accurate
> for state of the art when added. But no one foresaw that DSP's would
> allow an audio based SS implementation inside a SSB bandwidth. The FCC
> reg was written to address the then current DSSS modems which used
> spreading factors of 100x with direct IF injection, etc. And are totally
> inappropriate for HF usage. Put another way, most professional RF
> engineers would consider any audio based scheme to not be DSSS as it's
> just not how it's done. Pretty much all real world DSSS systems use IF
> level modulation to the point that it's one of the main identifying
> characteristics.
> 
> - Very inappropriate involvement of the FCC. This is absolutely not the
> way to approach a new mode, the answer is nearly always "check the regs".
> 
> One thing we can probably all agree on is that ROS is pretty much dead
> for consideration in the US. The waters are too muddied at this point.
> 
> I'm more concerned about impact to the next innovation.
> 
> And the fact that all the noise & behavior set aside, the author did
> implement something new that should have been evaluated on it's merits
> before declared illegal via trial by yahoogroup. (Before he hastened
> it's demise due to his own unprofessional behavior).
> 
> Personally, this episode just cements my believe that the US will be
> trapped using legacy modes & arcane restrictions for the most part until
> some form of bandwidth based bandplan approach is implemented like much
> of the civilized world.
> 
> Lest we crow about some of the more recent innovations, we have to
> factor in that rtty still rules the airwaves from a number of users and
> usage perspective.
> 
> And it's about as inefficient a mode we could come up with when impact
> to the spectrum is factored in. (medium power, wide sidebands, single
> user per channel, etc). Call me when there is a weekend with as many PSK
> signals on the air as one of the (too frequent) RTTY contests.
> 
> I'm not opposed to RTTY, exactly the opposite. But it's the RTTY centric
> regs that hamper our development. Even things like P3 & winmor are
> having to go the long way around to maximize performance while not
> running afoul of the arcane RTTY based regs. (Much less use of tech like
> the FS-1052 modems, etc)
> 
> Have fun,
> 
> Alan
> km4ba
>

[digitalradio] Regulations

[Rein A]

"  and/or we can campaign to change them. "

Amen

73 Rein W6SZ

Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions

[Alan Barrow]

bg...@comcast.net wrote:
> 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.

This is absolutely not the case.

I know from first hand experience that all you have to do is be prepared
to present any coding sequence upon demand. And that coding (viterbi,
pseudo-random, whatever) does not constitute encryption to the FCC's.

This was resolved back in the early packet days and the WA4DSY 56k modems.

This is true of many of the other modes/modems. And was also ruled upon
by the FCC due to challenges by the anti-Pactor crowd.

Have fun,

Alan
km4ba

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

[Alan Barrow]

rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Hi Alan, 
>
> Why did you wait so long with contributing here?
> Please explain.

Hello Rein,

I've posted on this subject several times in the past with ITU & IEEE
references as well.

It does seem to get lost in the noise at times.

It does not help at all that the ROS author was doing much to incite
hatred toward the mode, which unfortunately flows over to anything that
looks/smells like ROS. (Specifically SS'ish type modes)

The most problematic aspects are the way the whole dialog about ROS as
handled are:

- Overly simplistic tests/definitions on an already poorly defined (from
FCC reg perspective) mode

- Simplistic bandwidth comparisons that do not factor in total
throughput. (IE: The effect of processor gain, FEC, etc). I don't think
ROS was stellar here, but the idea that a wider mode for X data rate is
worse than a narrower mode is flawed. Otherwise we'd all be using RTTY.
FEC increases bandwidth for the same data rate, but the trade off
surfaces over sustained measurement in real (difficult) HF conditions.
Skip's work did show there was not a big win for ROS, so we arrived at
the right spot. But many were banning just because it was wider than
their favorite mode!

- Lack of consideration that multiple SS signals could occupy the same
spectrum, effectively decreasing the total required bandwidth. There is
a point of diminishing returns, and ROS may not fare well. But if I
could stack a dozen or more data signals simultaneously in a single SSB
width slot, would that be a bad thing? Or what if a AF type SS (AFSS?)
mode could live on a non-interference basis, should it be banned just
because it was technically SS? No testing was done that I'm aware of
that would have allowed real world throughput to be measured with
multiple signals on the same channel. This is one of the big wins of DSSS!

- Assumption that the current FCC reg is the end all. It was accurate
for state of the art when added. But no one foresaw that DSP's would
allow an audio based SS implementation inside a SSB bandwidth. The FCC
reg was written to address the then current DSSS modems which used
spreading factors of 100x with direct IF injection, etc. And are totally
inappropriate for HF usage. Put another way, most professional RF
engineers would consider any audio based scheme to not be DSSS as it's
just not how it's done. Pretty much all real world DSSS systems use IF
level modulation to the point that it's one of the main identifying
characteristics.

- Very inappropriate involvement of the FCC. This is absolutely not the
way to approach a new mode, the answer is nearly always "check the regs".

One thing we can probably all agree on is that ROS is pretty much dead
for consideration in the US. The waters are too muddied at this point.

I'm more concerned about impact to the next innovation.

And the fact that all the noise & behavior set aside, the author did
implement something new that should have been evaluated on it's merits
before declared illegal via trial by yahoogroup. (Before he hastened
it's demise due to his own unprofessional behavior).

Personally, this episode just cements my believe that the US will be
trapped using legacy modes & arcane restrictions for the most part until
some form of bandwidth based bandplan approach is implemented like much
of the civilized world.

Lest we crow about some of the more recent innovations, we have to
factor in that rtty still rules the airwaves from a number of users and
usage perspective.

And it's about as inefficient a mode we could come up with when impact
to the spectrum is factored in. (medium power, wide sidebands, single
user per channel, etc). Call me when there is a weekend with as many PSK
signals on the air as one of the (too frequent) RTTY contests.

I'm not opposed to RTTY, exactly the opposite. But it's the RTTY centric
regs that hamper our development. Even things like P3 & winmor are
having to go the long way around to maximize performance while not
running afoul of the arcane RTTY based regs. (Much less use of tech like
the FS-1052 modems, etc)

Have fun,

Alan
km4ba

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

[J. Moen]

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

AW: [digitalradio] Re: OT II ? ROS activity from HAMspots

[Siegfried Jackstien]

Hope that we found all email adresses from the spotters to inform them what
is going on in their pc ..

RE: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions

[Lester Veenstra]

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 300–3000 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 ‘‘F’’

is indicated, Phase modulation ‘‘G’’ 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)1423-846-385

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

Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions

[bgrly]

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 300–3000 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 


N OTE : Whenever frequency modulation ‘‘F’’ 

is indicated, Phase modulation ‘‘G’’ 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)1423-846-385 

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 1:52 PM 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? 










sorry, my typo. It's in 97.3. (b)(9) 

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

[Dave Wright]

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

[KH6TY]

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.

++ 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

-Original Message-
>From: Alan Barrow mailto:ml9003%40pinztrek.com>>
>Sent: Jul 13, 2010 1:22 PM
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
>
>graham787 wrote:
>> So, if bits are added to the transmit waveform that are not 
performing a function of helping to re-create an error free 
replication of the input data, it meets my test as spread spectrum. If 
the symbols in the transmit waveform cannot be predicted by the 
previous sequence of bits over time at the input, it also would meet 
my test as spread spectrum. To reiterate on this point, just because 
the symbols of the transmit waveform are changing during an unchanging 
input, does not imply spread spectrum.

>>
>> Instead, they may well be the result of a defined randomizer 
process followed by multiple layers of FE

[digitalradio] Re: OT II ? ROS activity from HAMspots

[rein0zn]

  16:52 UTC

  http://hamspots.net/ros/

73 Rein W6SZ

[digitalradio] OT?

[rein0zn]

  
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/13/consumer-reports-iphone-4_n_644107.html

73 Rein W6SZ

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

[rein0zn]

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


-Original Message-
>From: Alan Barrow 
>Sent: Jul 13, 2010 1:22 PM
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
>
>graham787 wrote:
>> So, if bits are added to the transmit waveform that are not performing a 
>> function of helping to re-create an error free replication of the input 
>> data, it meets my test as spread spectrum. If the symbols in the transmit 
>> waveform cannot be predicted by the previous sequence of bits over time at 
>> the input, it also would meet my test as spread spectrum. To reiterate on 
>> this point, just because the symbols of the transmit waveform are changing 
>> during an unchanging input, does not imply spread spectrum. 
>>
>> Instead, they may well be the result of a defined randomizer process 
>> followed by multiple layers of FEC and modulation coding.
>>   
>
>While I do not support ROS in any form, I think the group is on a very
>slippery slope here with well intentioned but misinformed definitions &
>tests that may haunt us in the future!
>
>Just the fact that data is randomized does not define SS. There has to
>be a spreading factor, which has some rough definitions  based on
>practical applications, but is not addressed in any FCC definitions.
>
>Skip's well intentioned but overly simplistic test of looking at the bit
>stream is not enough to define SS. There are many legitimate reasons to
>code data resulting in a pseudo-random fashion that have nothing to do
>with SS!
>
>The most common is coding so the transitions between bit's can easily be
>detected even in noise. It's a problem when sequential bits look the same.
>
>You can also factor in FEC. There are many, many writeups on
>convolutional encoding that go into this. (Viterbi & reed-solomon are in
>wide usage)
>
>But it's also useful to spread the energy out in the bandwidth and avoid
>sidebands created by single tones of long duration. There are multiple
>modem/modes which do this, some in very wide usage.
>
>So yes, SS (really DSSS) is pseudo-random. But not all pseudo-random
>coding is SS, and we should not be proposing that as a litmus test!
>
>The real test should be:
>- direct or BPSK modulation via a pseudo-random code in addition to any
>coding for FEC (convolutional, etc)
>- A spreading factor significantly higher than the original data rate
>
>The 2nd item is the key part, and it's listed but virtually never quoted
>in this group, but is listed in nearly all the SS definitions. Nor is it
>addressed in the FCC part 97 rules.
>
>It's not enough that the bandwidth is higher than the data rate would
>imply, as nearly all modes with FEC would fail that by definition.
>
>The key is the "significantly wider" aspect, also referred to in
>ITU/IEEE definitions as "typically orders of magnitude greater than the
>data rate". And this is why many engineers question whether any SSB
>generated mode could be "real" SS. ROS only did it by having the
>original data rate lower than the SSB bandwidth.
>
>About the lowest commercial DSSS implementations use a spreading factor
>of 16:1, and that's for consumer grade without noise performance concerns.
>
>Most DSSS implementations in the real world use spreading factors of 100
>or greater, as that's when you start seeing significant noise recovery
>improvements.
>
>In DSSS, the "processor gain" which improves noise resilience is
>directly related to the spreading factor.
>
>I've posted multiple definitions from the ITU & IEEE in the past for
>DSSS. Wikipedia, which has some good information, does not constitute a
>formal definition like the ITU & IEEE references do. (Part of the reason
>that wikipedia is not admissible as sources for college & research papers).
>
>There is no shortage of formal definitions, we should not have to invent
>our own. There are also some very readable definitions from mfg's for
>their DSSS components.  Like this one:
>< http://www.maxim-ic.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/1890 >
>
>
>So ROS (RIP) is very odd in this aspect, as it's nowhere near
>conventional DSSS implementations in it's spreading factor, yet is
>higher than the spreading seen by FEC & convolutional encoding. This is
>a constraint of the AFSK/SSB encoding, but does pose some questions as
>to how it should be treated.
>
>In all the discussion of SS, bandwidth, etc, everyone is missing the
>point that DSSS wider bandwidth usage is offset by use of CDMA.
>(collision detection multiple access). DSSS is 

AW: [digitalradio] Re: ROS

[Siegfried Jackstien]

No . just block adif exe in a firewall and everything is fine

You can use the soft with or without email but without spotting is only
possible when using a firewall

The soft does not spot later . think you have no inet at home today.
tomorrow you get inet . if now the soft would spot later there were hundreds
of spots (of no need cause from yesterday) so the soft sends right on time
(or is quiet)

Hope I could help

sigi

[digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions

[Lester Veenstra]

 

 

 

§ 97.3 Definitions.

(b) The definitions of technical symbols

used in this part are:

(9) UHF (ultra-high frequency). The

frequency range 300–3000 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 ‘‘F’’

is indicated, Phase modulation ‘‘G’’ 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)1423-846-385

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 1:52 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?

 

  


sorry, my typo.  It's in 97.3. (b)(9)

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

[Alan Barrow]

graham787 wrote:
> So, if bits are added to the transmit waveform that are not performing a 
> function of helping to re-create an error free replication of the input data, 
> it meets my test as spread spectrum. If the symbols in the transmit waveform 
> cannot be predicted by the previous sequence of bits over time at the input, 
> it also would meet my test as spread spectrum. To reiterate on this point, 
> just because the symbols of the transmit waveform are changing during an 
> unchanging input, does not imply spread spectrum. 
>
> Instead, they may well be the result of a defined randomizer process followed 
> by multiple layers of FEC and modulation coding.
>   

While I do not support ROS in any form, I think the group is on a very
slippery slope here with well intentioned but misinformed definitions &
tests that may haunt us in the future!

Just the fact that data is randomized does not define SS. There has to
be a spreading factor, which has some rough definitions  based on
practical applications, but is not addressed in any FCC definitions.

Skip's well intentioned but overly simplistic test of looking at the bit
stream is not enough to define SS. There are many legitimate reasons to
code data resulting in a pseudo-random fashion that have nothing to do
with SS!

The most common is coding so the transitions between bit's can easily be
detected even in noise. It's a problem when sequential bits look the same.

You can also factor in FEC. There are many, many writeups on
convolutional encoding that go into this. (Viterbi & reed-solomon are in
wide usage)

But it's also useful to spread the energy out in the bandwidth and avoid
sidebands created by single tones of long duration. There are multiple
modem/modes which do this, some in very wide usage.

So yes, SS (really DSSS) is pseudo-random. But not all pseudo-random
coding is SS, and we should not be proposing that as a litmus test!

The real test should be:
- direct or BPSK modulation via a pseudo-random code in addition to any
coding for FEC (convolutional, etc)
- A spreading factor significantly higher than the original data rate

The 2nd item is the key part, and it's listed but virtually never quoted
in this group, but is listed in nearly all the SS definitions. Nor is it
addressed in the FCC part 97 rules.

It's not enough that the bandwidth is higher than the data rate would
imply, as nearly all modes with FEC would fail that by definition.

The key is the "significantly wider" aspect, also referred to in
ITU/IEEE definitions as "typically orders of magnitude greater than the
data rate". And this is why many engineers question whether any SSB
generated mode could be "real" SS. ROS only did it by having the
original data rate lower than the SSB bandwidth.

About the lowest commercial DSSS implementations use a spreading factor
of 16:1, and that's for consumer grade without noise performance concerns.

Most DSSS implementations in the real world use spreading factors of 100
or greater, as that's when you start seeing significant noise recovery
improvements.

In DSSS, the "processor gain" which improves noise resilience is
directly related to the spreading factor.

I've posted multiple definitions from the ITU & IEEE in the past for
DSSS. Wikipedia, which has some good information, does not constitute a
formal definition like the ITU & IEEE references do. (Part of the reason
that wikipedia is not admissible as sources for college & research papers).

There is no shortage of formal definitions, we should not have to invent
our own. There are also some very readable definitions from mfg's for
their DSSS components.  Like this one:
< http://www.maxim-ic.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/1890 >


So ROS (RIP) is very odd in this aspect, as it's nowhere near
conventional DSSS implementations in it's spreading factor, yet is
higher than the spreading seen by FEC & convolutional encoding. This is
a constraint of the AFSK/SSB encoding, but does pose some questions as
to how it should be treated.

In all the discussion of SS, bandwidth, etc, everyone is missing the
point that DSSS wider bandwidth usage is offset by use of CDMA.
(collision detection multiple access). DSSS is nearly always used with
many stations on the same "channel" with the same key. It's no accident
that cellular went from analog techniques to DSSS. it maximizes use
of their spectrum!

So the idea of ROS having multiple net frequencies is just silly, all
ROS stations should be using the same frequency! For that matter, so
should most of our advanced modes including winmor, ALE, etc. And we
have to factor in the fact that multiple stations could/should be using
the same spectrum when you examine bandwidth of DSSS.

Set aside all the unprofessional behavior by the pro & anti ROS
contingents...

I believe ROS as implemented did not offer enough processing  gain to
justify usage on crowded bands like 40m. But I think we hams lost an
opportunity to experiment with new modes that had promis

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS

[J. Moen]

That, and the fact that if you believe the author's original description of ROS 
that it uses spread spectrum, then it's not legal in the US on bands lower than 
220.   What's frustrating about the FCC rule is that ROS appears to use a 
relatively narrow band form of frequency hopping spread spectrum, so while the 
FCC prohibition of FHSS below 220 might be defensible for the original wider 
bandwidth SS, it becomes much harder to defend in the case of ROS.  In fact, I 
don't remember reading any posts on any email lists that believe the current 
rule  (with a blanket prohibition of all forms of SS) makes sense.  But, right 
now at least, that's the rule in the US.

   Jim - K6JM

  - Original Message - 
  From: "John Becker, WØJAB" 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:40 AM
  Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS



  If one was to just disconnect from the net would the program
  later try to post?

  It seems that this is the main concern of many?

  John, W0JAB
  EM49lk

RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS

[John Becker, WØJAB]

If one was to just disconnect from the net would the program
later try to post?

It seems that this is the main concern of many?

John, W0JAB
EM49lk

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS

[rein0zn]

Julian

If Jose does not fix the generation of these spam messages, the method will
disappear.

If he fixes it, seems unlikely, the people who are using it now, will keep on
using it and it will grow.

I just wonder how many here in this group actually have used ROS,
or, are able to receive with it, or are following ROS activity.

Up to the time that we found about these "reporting" practices it was
quite popular in your part of the world in particular. 

[[  I don't invite messages informing me how stupid and/or dangerous it is
to do that! ]]

I use a computer here linked to a WEBSDR and hear pings around the clock.
The spam issue might change or probably will change this,  unless it is being 
fixed.

IF Mr ROS Want his method to die, he should leave it as it is. It is in his
hands ( IMHO ) 

73 Rein W6SZ

-Original Message-
>From: g4ilo 
>Sent: Jul 13, 2010 6:04 AM
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS
>
>Why hasn't this subject died, like the mode itself? The developer has said he 
>won't develop it any more, so ROS (the mode) is dead.
>
>The fact that someone wants to take over a website makes no difference unless 
>the source code for the mode is also handed over so that development can also 
>continue, including perhaps incorporation of the mode into the open software 
>like DM780 and Fldigi.
>
>Do you really want to continue promoting a mode which, unless the above 
>occurs, will always be an "outsider" never able to be given or use its own 
>distinctive RSID and therefore always the cause of confusion wherever it is 
>used?
>
>We should be glad that it is over and leave it to rest in peace. If ROS proved 
>anything of interest from a technical point of view, someone else will 
>eventually develop an alternative, hopefully in an open and 
>non-confrontational manner.
>
>Julian, G4ILO
>
>--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, rein...@... wrote:
>>
>> 
>> One is going around in circles and so real answers are being provided
>> if one is thinking to get some where we always get the being bored,
>> lets move on crowd on the scene.
>> 
>> Rosmodem site will go over in other hands with I hope not the anti
>> participation.
>> 
>> Try the boycott and you will see he will give in, too much pride to
>> let it go down in smoke what is sure when it gets known in wider circles.
>> 
>> No need to go on your knees, do not use it, ask CO2CD. 
>> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html
>Chat, Skeds, and "Spots" all in one (resize to suit)
>
>Facebook= http://www.facebook.com/pages/digitalradio/123270301037522
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

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

[rein0zn]

Hello W2XJ.

YOU are a man to my heart, You got it right on.
I have tried to make that point from the day it
happened. 

Commitment -> consequences far beyond some silly ham radio stuff
Commitees, study groups, legal advisors etc etc
Poor Agent, what ever his or hers number was!


73 Rein  W6SZ 

-Original Message-
>From: W2XJ 
>Sent: Jul 12, 2010 6:24 PM
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: AW: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
>
>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?

[bgrly]

sorry, my typo. It's in 97.3. (b)(9) 


- Original Message - 
From: "Lester Veenstra"  
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:38:40 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? 






SS is defined in 97.1. ??? 

--- 

TITLE 47 - TELECOMMUNICATION 

CHAPTER I - FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

SUBCHAPTER D - SAFETY AND SPECIAL RADIO SERVICES 

PART 97 - AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE 

subpart a - GENERAL PROVISIONS 

97.1 - Basis and purpose. 

The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an amateur radio 
service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles: 

(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the 
public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with 
respect to providing emergency communications. 

(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to 
the advancement of the radio art. 

(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which 
provide for advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of 
the art. 

(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of 
trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts. 

(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance 
international goodwill. 







Read more: 
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/97-1-basis-and-purpose-19857102#ixzz0tXP5hN2q 










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: Monday, July 12, 2010 11:49 PM 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? 




SS is defined in 97.1. ..Brent, KE4MZ 




___ 

[digitalradio] Re: ROS

[graham787]

>>someone else will
eventually develop an alternative, hopefully in an open and non-confrontational
manner.<<

Thats the  whole point .. no  one  will,  as no  one can (in the  usa) use it 
under the  catch 220 clause .. even the  established ss modes cannot be used 
now , after this  fiasco , another example of trying to  legislate round  
existing technology and not by guide lines , the  latest was the  EU 500  
allocation  , defining  telegraphy in a  maximum bandwidth  of 100 Hz , 
expecting CW only to  be  used , where  as the  definition of Telegraphy is 
actually  message  transfer  not method `of' transfer and  now  data  is used 
as well …

G .


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "g4ilo"  wrote:
>
> Why hasn't this subject died, like the mode itself? The developer has said he 
> won't develop it any more, so ROS (the mode) is dead.
> 
> The fact that someone wants to take over a website makes no difference unless 
> the source code for the mode is also handed over so that development can also 
> continue, including perhaps incorporation of the mode into the open software 
> like DM780 and Fldigi.
> 
> Do you really want to continue promoting a mode which, unless the above 
> occurs, will always be an "outsider" never able to be given or use its own 
> distinctive RSID and therefore always the cause of confusion wherever it is 
> used?
> 
> We should be glad that it is over and leave it to rest in peace. If ROS 
> proved anything of interest from a technical point of view, someone else will 
> eventually develop an alternative, hopefully in an open and 
> non-confrontational manner.
> 
> Julian, G4ILO
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, rein0zn@ wrote:
> >
> > 
> > One is going around in circles and so real answers are being provided
> > if one is thinking to get some where we always get the being bored,
> > lets move on crowd on the scene.
> > 
> > Rosmodem site will go over in other hands with I hope not the anti
> > participation.
> > 
> > Try the boycott and you will see he will give in, too much pride to
> > let it go down in smoke what is sure when it gets known in wider circles.
> > 
> > No need to go on your knees, do not use it, ask CO2CD. 
> >
>

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: ROS

[Jose V. Gavila]

Hi Julian,

>Why hasn't this subject died, like the mode itself? The developer has said he 
>won't develop it any more, so ROS (the mode) is dead.
>
>The fact that someone wants to take over a website makes no difference unless 
>the source code for the mode is also handed over so that development can also 
>continue, including perhaps incorporation of the mode into the open software 
>like DM780 and Fldigi. 
>
>Do you really want to continue promoting a mode which, unless the above occurs,

>will always be an "outsider" never able to be given or use its own distinctive 
>RSID and therefore always the cause of confusion wherever it is used?
>
>We should be glad that it is over and leave it to rest in peace. If ROS proved 
>anything of interest from a technical point of view, someone else will 
>eventually develop an alternative, hopefully in an open and non-confrontational

>manner.
>
>Julian, G4ILO

I think you are right. I wish I had more time to devote to programming so I
could participate on such a project but, well, it is not that way right now.

I don't know if any other person in this Group has talked with Mr. Ros, as I did
a month or so ago, in a local ham meeting (2010 EA-QRP meeting in Sinarcas). As
I saw it, there was no way he would allow to get other people involved in the
development nor getting any other feedback that the one in the blog and by
e-mail (yes, there was a recently founded "official ROS group" but activity was
lacking). So it was difficult to have a long-run development certainty.

All in all, if someone wants to start from scratch with a similar mode, it would
be fine... but, of course, the SS question remains on air.

Well, let's enjoy any other of the multiple digital modes available!

See you on my PC ;-)

Best regards,

JOSE

--
 73 EB5AGV - JOSE V. GAVILA - IM99sm La Canyada - Valencia(SPAIN) 
 Vintage Radio and Test Equipment... http://jvgavila.com
 RadioRepair BLOG... http://radiorepair.blogspot.com

[digitalradio] Re: ROS

[g4ilo]

Why hasn't this subject died, like the mode itself? The developer has said he 
won't develop it any more, so ROS (the mode) is dead.

The fact that someone wants to take over a website makes no difference unless 
the source code for the mode is also handed over so that development can also 
continue, including perhaps incorporation of the mode into the open software 
like DM780 and Fldigi.

Do you really want to continue promoting a mode which, unless the above occurs, 
will always be an "outsider" never able to be given or use its own distinctive 
RSID and therefore always the cause of confusion wherever it is used?

We should be glad that it is over and leave it to rest in peace. If ROS proved 
anything of interest from a technical point of view, someone else will 
eventually develop an alternative, hopefully in an open and non-confrontational 
manner.

Julian, G4ILO

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, rein...@... wrote:
>
> 
> One is going around in circles and so real answers are being provided
> if one is thinking to get some where we always get the being bored,
> lets move on crowd on the scene.
> 
> Rosmodem site will go over in other hands with I hope not the anti
> participation.
> 
> Try the boycott and you will see he will give in, too much pride to
> let it go down in smoke what is sure when it gets known in wider circles.
> 
> No need to go on your knees, do not use it, ask CO2CD. 
> 

[digitalradio] Dual ALE 400 and Winmor Server Station de K3UK

[Andy obrien]

I'm experimenting again.  I have a full time (24/7) HF Winklink-Winmor
server as previously announced, using several different bands during
the day.   I have also configured an ALE 400 stations to operate the
same frequencies at the same times as the Winmor server. What does
this do ?  Well, the Winmor server provides the usual role of email
in/out via Winlink and, rather selfishly,  ALE400 provides an
opportunity to work me key-board to keyboard , if needed.  So, if you
are looking to work me,  the ALE station will respond IF I am in the
shack.  Call ID is active too, so I can log any call IDs on the
frequencies.  I may periodically  ( and manually)   "sound"  via ALE
400 .

The Winmor server will not respond if the frequency is busy, and the
ALE 400 station will NOT have auto-answer enabled.  So, I should have
the normal courteous operator procedures in place.

24 hours per day,  the current schedule for  K3UK  is


 to 0859 UTC 7103 (dial)
0900 to 0959 UTC 3583 (dial)
1000 to 1259 UTC 7103 (dial)
1300-to 1759 UTC 14110 (dial)
1800 to 2059 UTC 28125 (dial)
2100 to 2359 UTC 14110 (dial)

All frequencies are USB.


So, if you want to experiment  with different modes, call me KB to KB
via ALE400.  If you have traffic to pass, use the Winmor server via
RMS Express software.
Andy K3UK

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
>>> > >
>>> > >
>> >
> 
>  
>
> 
>