Re: [digitalradio] DM-780
Assuming you're using v5, it is activated via a macro instruction "". For use on receive, go to Program Options, Modes + IDs, the Reed Solomon (RSID) tab, and "Enable RSID detection". You can also activate a RSID transmit button as well, if you don't want to program it into the macros. That option is on the right-hand side of the Reed-Solomon (RSID) tab mentioned in the previous paragraph. Dave K3DCW On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Lynn wrote: > > Could someone tell me if DM-780 uses RSID/TSID. Thought it supported it, but > can't find where to turn it on or off. > Thanks > Lynn > > Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
>>>AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 4:29 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! The ARRL response was that the final proposal retained the existing automatic subands. >>>My recollection is that a flurry of desperate activity preceded the ARRL's retracting its proposal; if part of that flurry included a modification that would have retained the automatic sub-bands, I don't recall seeing it. 73, Dave, AA6YQ - Original Message - >>>When that 1 percent deploys unattended stations that transmit without first checking to see if the frequency is in use, they can create havoc far out of proportion to their fraction of ham community. Regulation by bandwidth and not by mode seems to be working everywhere that it is allowed. under a bandwidth regulatory environment, there is no "phone band." >>>True, if ops generally have the courtesy to not QRM existing QSOs. Those who rudely deploy unattended stations without competent busy frequency detectors are what make "regulation by bandwith" unacceptable. BTW, it wasn't "winlink" that wanted anything, it was the ARRL who wrote the proposal. There were flaws in it, but it was headed in the proper direction. it will return as we move toward a digital future. >>>The ARRL withdrew its "regulation by bandwidth" proposal because it had no effective response to the factual assertions that this proposal would greatly expand the frequency range accessible to unattended stations without providing any means of ensuring that such stations would not QRM existing QSOs. When those who deploy unattended stations upgrade them to rarely QRM existing QSOs (emergency conditions excepted), "regulation by bandwidth" will become possible. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
>>>AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of k4cjx Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 2:12 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! Amazing that one thinks that 1 percent can cause any type of difference, anywhere, especially on the Phone bands. >>>When that 1 percent deploys unattended stations that transmit without first checking to see if the frequency is in use, they can create havoc far out of proportion to their fraction of ham community. Regulation by bandwidth and not by mode seems to be working everywhere that it is allowed. under a bandwidth regulatory environment, there is no "phone band." >>>True, if ops generally have the courtesy to not QRM existing QSOs. Those who rudely deploy unattended stations without competent busy frequency detectors are what make "regulation by bandwith" unacceptable. BTW, it wasn't "winlink" that wanted anything, it was the ARRL who wrote the proposal. There were flaws in it, but it was headed in the proper direction. it will return as we move toward a digital future. >>>The ARRL withdrew its "regulation by bandwidth" proposal because it had no effective response to the factual assertions that this proposal would greatly expand the frequency range accessible to unattended stations without providing any means of ensuring that such stations would not QRM existing QSOs. When those who deploy unattended stations upgrade them to rarely QRM existing QSOs (emergency conditions excepted), "regulation by bandwidth" will become possible. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Re: CMSK63
Sorry, but not seeing any trace of you on the waterfall 73 Dave KB3MOW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of my_call_is_ac4m Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 9:05 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: CMSK63 I am on 80m right now on 3587 zero beat freq calling , I hope the Europeans will listen. I will be here till 0200z That is 3586 USB VFO +1000hz There was a RTTY net around 3588 --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "my_call_is_ac4m" wrote: > > I will be on 80m tonight using CMSK63 then switching to 31 after contact just to see for myself how well this mode does under noisy conditions I will be active on 3.587 tone frequency at 0100z but I have a few question does his software have Macro commands like other software? And what is up with the sample rate control? Is that for TX offsets? >
RE: [digitalradio] Re: CMSK63
Listening for you Claudio
73
Dave
KB3MOW
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of Claudio
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 7:17 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CMSK63
Calling in 14079 cmsk63
Claudio-LU2VC
2010/8/25 Juergen
No luck again today. Could be that it is an issue of the poor
propagation caused by the present sun wind and it's impact on the magnetic
field of the earth. I will try again in CMSK next week when the sun wind has
calmed down as the propagation forecast is telling us. Thanks for the report
from W9 even though it was too weak for decoding.
I will be qrv in JT65 again and / or Olivia 16/500 (14076 resp. 14074.9
+ 1500 Hz USB in Olivia) later the night.
73
Juergen, DL8LE
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave 'Doc' Corio"
wrote:
>
> Had you at S-9 and clean decode on every transmission. Not real sure
how finicky the tuning is on this mode. I used the fine-tuning control to
move the ellipse so that it was centered in the display, but it copied just
fine even when it was off a bit.
>
> Could be a sound card issue I suppose, but at 8000 Hz my card is off
by only .062% out and .017 in - that would make it somewhere around 8001 -
hardly enough to adjust for.
>
> 73
> Dave
> KB3MOW
>
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Russell Blair
> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 5:17 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [digitalradio] CMSK63
>
>
>
> Dave I was seeing some one but unable to decode them I was set on 63
and sample rate at 8000 I will keep trying
>
> Russell
>
> 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving
door!
> 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have.
> - Gerald Ford
>
> " IN GOD WE TRUST "
>
> Russell Blair (NC5O)
> Skype-Russell.Blair
> Hell Field #300
> DRCC #55
> 30m Dig-group #693
> Digital Mode Club #03198
> BARTG #8457
>
> --- On Wed, 8/25/10, Dave 'Doc' Corio wrote:
>
>
> From: Dave 'Doc' Corio
> Subject: RE: [digitalradio] CMSK63
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2010, 4:05 PM
>
>
>
> 
> Copy you 599 Russell, but guess you aren't hearing me
> 73
> Dave
> KB3MOW
>
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Russell Blair
> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:44 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] CMSK63
>
>
>
> Well I cant help you on 3.587 in Texas 80m is dead but I'm on 14.079
calling CQ CSMK63 tone 1000 for the next hour.
>
> Russell NC5O
>
> 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving
door!
> 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have.
> - Gerald Ford
>
> " IN GOD WE TRUST "
>
> Russell Blair (NC5O)
> Skype-Russell.Blair
> Hell Field #300
> DRCC #55
> 30m Dig-group #693
> Digital Mode Club #03198
> BARTG #8457
>
> --- On Wed, 8/25/10, Steinar Aanesland wrote:
>
>
> From: Steinar Aanesland
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] CMSK63
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2010, 3:34 PM
>
>
>
>
> Hi all
>
> I am calling cq on 3587 1000Hz usb right now .
>
> la5vna Steinar
>
> On 25.08.2010 17:57, my_call_is_ac4m wrote:
> > I will be on 80m tonight using CMSK63 then switching to 31 after
contact just to see for myself how well this mode does under noisy
conditions I will be active on 3.587 tone frequency at 0100z but I have a
few question does his software have Macro commands like other software? And
what is up with the sample rate control? Is that for TX offsets?
> >
> >
>
RE: [digitalradio] CMSK63
Had you at S-9 and clean decode on every transmission. Not real sure how finicky the tuning is on this mode. I used the fine-tuning control to move the ellipse so that it was centered in the display, but it copied just fine even when it was off a bit. Could be a sound card issue I suppose, but at 8000 Hz my card is off by only .062% out and .017 in - that would make it somewhere around 8001 - hardly enough to adjust for. 73 Dave KB3MOW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Russell Blair Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 5:17 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] CMSK63 Dave I was seeing some one but unable to decode them I was set on 63 and sample rate at 8000 I will keep trying Russell 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Gerald Ford " IN GOD WE TRUST " Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 Digital Mode Club #03198 BARTG #8457 --- On Wed, 8/25/10, Dave 'Doc' Corio wrote: From: Dave 'Doc' Corio Subject: RE: [digitalradio] CMSK63 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2010, 4:05 PM Copy you 599 Russell, but guess you aren't hearing me 73 Dave KB3MOW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Russell Blair Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:44 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] CMSK63 Well I cant help you on 3.587 in Texas 80m is dead but I'm on 14.079 calling CQ CSMK63 tone 1000 for the next hour. Russell NC5O 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Gerald Ford " IN GOD WE TRUST " Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 Digital Mode Club #03198 BARTG #8457 --- On Wed, 8/25/10, Steinar Aanesland wrote: From: Steinar Aanesland Subject: Re: [digitalradio] CMSK63 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2010, 3:34 PM Hi all I am calling cq on 3587 1000Hz usb right now . la5vna Steinar On 25.08.2010 17:57, my_call_is_ac4m wrote: > I will be on 80m tonight using CMSK63 then switching to 31 after contact just to see for myself how well this mode does under noisy conditions I will be active on 3.587 tone frequency at 0100z but I have a few question does his software have Macro commands like other software? And what is up with the sample rate control? Is that for TX offsets? > >
RE: [digitalradio] CMSK63
Copy you 599 Russell, but guess you aren't hearing me 73 Dave KB3MOW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Russell Blair Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:44 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] CMSK63 Well I cant help you on 3.587 in Texas 80m is dead but I'm on 14.079 calling CQ CSMK63 tone 1000 for the next hour. Russell NC5O 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Gerald Ford " IN GOD WE TRUST " Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 Digital Mode Club #03198 BARTG #8457 --- On Wed, 8/25/10, Steinar Aanesland wrote: From: Steinar Aanesland Subject: Re: [digitalradio] CMSK63 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2010, 3:34 PM Hi all I am calling cq on 3587 1000Hz usb right now . la5vna Steinar On 25.08.2010 17:57, my_call_is_ac4m wrote: > I will be on 80m tonight using CMSK63 then switching to 31 after contact just to see for myself how well this mode does under noisy conditions I will be active on 3.587 tone frequency at 0100z but I have a few question does his software have Macro commands like other software? And what is up with the sample rate control? Is that for TX offsets? > >
RE: [digitalradio] CMSK63
Listening for you in PA Russell 73 KB3MOW Dave -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Russell Blair Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:44 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] CMSK63 Well I cant help you on 3.587 in Texas 80m is dead but I'm on 14.079 calling CQ CSMK63 tone 1000 for the next hour. Russell NC5O 1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Gerald Ford " IN GOD WE TRUST " Russell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 Digital Mode Club #03198 BARTG #8457 --- On Wed, 8/25/10, Steinar Aanesland wrote: From: Steinar Aanesland Subject: Re: [digitalradio] CMSK63 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2010, 3:34 PM Hi all I am calling cq on 3587 1000Hz usb right now . la5vna Steinar On 25.08.2010 17:57, my_call_is_ac4m wrote: > I will be on 80m tonight using CMSK63 then switching to 31 after contact just to see for myself how well this mode does under noisy conditions I will be active on 3.587 tone frequency at 0100z but I have a few question does his software have Macro commands like other software? And what is up with the sample rate control? Is that for TX offsets? > >
RE: [digitalradio] Re: CMSK Freq's
I alternated calls to you and calls to CQ and never heard another signal. Not sure how propagation is, though. 73 Dave KB3MOW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Juergen Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 6:30 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: CMSK Freq's Called there in CMSK31 and 63 from 22.00 - 22.30 UTC. No reply. Will be there again tomorrow. 73 Juergen, DL8LE --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "k8yzk" wrote: > > I know CMSK is mainly for 160/80 metes (which I currently can't do), but what freq's are being used currently on the other bands/ > > thanks and 73 > Kurt >
Re: [digitalradio] Anyone For 6 Meter ROS ??
The only problem is that Mr Henderson is mistaken in one regard. Per Part 97, spread spectrum is not authorized on 6m or 2m. The rules specifically state (section 97.305(b)) "no SS modulation emission may be transmitted on any frequency where SS is not specifically authorized.". A review of the table associated with this section indicates SS is only authorized on 1.25m and above. Additionally, section 97.311 regulates SS emission specifically, including such things as maximum power (100w) and the use of automatic transmitter control if more than 1w is used to ensure that only the minimum amount of power is actually used. So, keep that in mind if you want to use it on UHF. For anyone who actually wants to READ the rules instead of relying on the opinions of others, the 2009 version can be found here (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009-title47-vol5/pdf/CFR-2009-title47-vol5-part97.pdf). The rules listed on the ARRL site are from 2007 and are thus out-of-date. The sections cited above are on page 26 and 27 of the PDF file (labeled page 611 and 612 of the regs). I would recommend that all amateurs keep a copy of this file on their computer. It is only 36 pages long and definitely worth reviewing from time to time. Dave K3DCW On Aug 24, 2010, at 9:16 AM, n4zq wrote: > Here is a response I got from Dan Henderson, N1ND, ARRL Regulatory > Information Manager about the legality of ROS here in the states. My question > was very simple. Is ROS a legal mode under FCC rules and if not, what would > it take to make it so. Here is what Dan had to say. > > From: dhender...@arrl.org > To: n...@hotmail.com > > Keith > > ROS is a spread spectrum technique. FCC rules allow Spread Spectrum above 50 > MHz. It is not currently legal on the HF bands in the US. There has been > quite a controversy about ROS since it was introduced. The original > documentation from the developer clearly stated it was SS which was confirmed > by the FCC. When the developer was notified SS was not legal in the US below > 30 MHz, he changed his documentation then posted a forged email claiming it > was from the FCC and that they had changed their opinion. Long story short, > it uses a frequency hopping SS technique, regardless of what the author later > claimed when the controversy erupted. This was verified by FCC engineers in > their labs. Yes, it is a narrow bandwidth SS technique but it is still SS. > > The FCC would have to change Part 97 in order for it to be allowed on the HF > bands in the US. They would either have to amend the rules to allow SS on all > amateur bands (something that would probably be strongly opposed because many > SS techniques are far wider than this mode and would create major problems on > the relatively small HF band allocations) or they would have to specifically > approve it for use. That is something that they have not been inclined to do > because they do not wish to be constantly adding individual modes as they are > developed. They provide a broad framework in the rules for what is allowed or > prohibited and the mode either meets those criteria or it doesn't. > > 73 > > Dan Henderson, N1ND > ARRL Regulatory Information Manager > > So it is what it is and I wouldn't look forward to being able to use it on HF > any time soon here in the good old USA. But it might be a great weak signal > mode on 6 meters in this very late E season. Anyone up to beaconing on 50.295 > or 144.160 MHz, the frequencies suggested within the program? I'll be on 6 > myself... > > Keith N4ZQ > > Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net
RE: [digitalradio] New CMSK released
Darned if I know of a set frequency for it, Andy, but given its' bandwidth, I'd guess we'd be safe just about anywhere in the digital bandplan as long as we don't park on top of another QSO! How about 7.078? 73 Dave KB3MOW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Andy obrien Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 8:37 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New CMSK released What are the main frequencies ? On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:35 AM, n0hnj wrote: CMSK version 21.08.10 has been released (http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/CMSK/cmsk.htm) Sound cards separate from Windows default can now be selected. Anyone wanting to try this mode out please drop me an email. I'll be checking periodically today. 73 Dave KB3MOW
Re: [digitalradio] Unknown Digital signal????
There are some known European users in that range, but without a recording, it would difficult to say for certain what it is and where is it coming from. However, keep in mind that while this frequency range is assigned to amateur radio exclusively in Region 2, that is not the case in Europe and Asia, and so you have military, governmental and other users that are authorized to use the band. Dave K3DCW On Aug 21, 2010, at 11:35 AM, kc2axu wrote: > Hi ,,, got a question for you guy's... On 3.860.00usb to 3.863.00usb there is > a digital signal. Does anyone know what type or mode the signal is and > possibly where it's coming from. Comes on about 2400 Zulu and is annoying as > hell Hoping someone might know... Thanks.. kc2axu > . > > > Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net
RE: [digitalradio] TAPR/ARRL DCC conference.
I suggested this to Rick a few months ago; he thought it worthy of consideration. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: Victor Poor [mailto:vp...@att.net] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:02 PM To: 'Dave AA6YQ'; digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; win...@yahoogroups.com; winlink_programs_gr...@yahoogroups.com; mars_winl...@yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Steven Bible' Subject: RE: [digitalradio] TAPR/ARRL DCC conference. Dave. We haven't used PMBOs in years. Perhaps you are thinking of RMS Pactor? Using the WINMOR busy detector with Pactor seems unlikely but we can talk about it at the conference if you are going to be there. Vic, W5SMM From: Dave AA6YQ [mailto:aa...@ambersoft.com] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 4:48 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com; win...@yahoogroups.com; winlink_programs_gr...@yahoogroups.com; mars_winl...@yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Steven Bible'; 'Victor Poor' Subject: RE: [digitalradio] TAPR/ARRL DCC conference. Will there be a session on retrofitting WINMOR's excellent busy frequency detector into Winlink PMBOs? 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Rick Muething Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 10:06 AM To: win...@yahoogroups.com; winlink_programs_gr...@yahoogroups.com; mars_winl...@yahoogroups.com; digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Steven Bible'; 'Victor Poor' Subject: [digitalradio] TAPR/ARRL DCC conference. All, Just a reminder to those interested in digital radio and WINMOR. Vic Poor, W5SMM and I will be giving papers on RMS Express and WINMOR at this year's TAPR/ARRL DCC conference http://www.tapr.org/dcc.html Sept 24-26 in Portland, OR. I will also be giving a 4 hour short course tutorial Sunday morning on DSP which includes a CD handout (PowerPoint and .pdf), sample DSP software and evaluation DSP tools. I believe TAPR/ARRL also plan to make the CD available after the conference. I look forward to meeting any of you that are attending and put a face to the emails we've exchanged! Vic and I plan to have some demo's set up for RMS Express, WINMOR and a new keyboard QSO protocol V4. I have attended many of the DCC conferences and always found them interesting and a great source of information, inspiration and ideas. 73, Rick Muething, KN6KB
RE: [digitalradio] TAPR/ARRL DCC conference.
Will there be a session on retrofitting WINMOR's excellent busy frequency detector into Winlink PMBOs? 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Rick Muething Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 10:06 AM To: win...@yahoogroups.com; winlink_programs_gr...@yahoogroups.com; mars_winl...@yahoogroups.com; digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Steven Bible'; 'Victor Poor' Subject: [digitalradio] TAPR/ARRL DCC conference. All, Just a reminder to those interested in digital radio and WINMOR. Vic Poor, W5SMM and I will be giving papers on RMS Express and WINMOR at this year's TAPR/ARRL DCC conference http://www.tapr.org/dcc.html Sept 24-26 in Portland, OR. I will also be giving a 4 hour short course tutorial Sunday morning on DSP which includes a CD handout (PowerPoint and .pdf), sample DSP software and evaluation DSP tools. I believe TAPR/ARRL also plan to make the CD available after the conference. I look forward to meeting any of you that are attending and put a face to the emails we've exchanged! Vic and I plan to have some demo's set up for RMS Express, WINMOR and a new keyboard QSO protocol V4. I have attended many of the DCC conferences and always found them interesting and a great source of information, inspiration and ideas. 73, Rick Muething, KN6KB
RE: [digitalradio] sound card manager software
>>>AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Hal Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 9:10 PM To: DigitalRadio Subject: [digitalradio] sound card manager software To The Group: The "sound card manager software" is about all I can think to call this program. It would allow you to set up different settings for each program you use with your soundcard and not have to constantly change mixer settings. For an example, you run Echolink,click this "program" and the Echolink settings come up. You run MultiPsk and those preset settings were saved and named and your ready to run the MultiPsk program. Ect etc. I have a new AMD/Dual Core Desktop machine running XP Pro. 3GB ram,1GB Radeon Card, 2.7 speed, 500 GB HD,multi-monitor set up. I run DxLab suite,N1MM/Mtty,MultiPsk,Echolink and work SSB on morning chats. I have a AFSK interface for my digital modes and logging. Why, you ask? Because several weeks ago on 40 meter chat the group said you have a Bad Feed back in the audio. I was at a loss. I had been running two NetVista desktops. One for digital programs, the other for SSB and Echolink. It was no problem because they ran independent of one another. Now I have a Workhorse AMD Machine and it won't function the way I want it to. I learned that by disconnecting the speaker line from the new AMD machine, no feedback into SSB chats.I could mute the line-out, no feedback. Now I go into to set up the Multipsk and I have to reset the soundcard settings. If I want to play music on the New machine the same thing occurs. That is the problem. It may have been on one of the other digital groups , but I can't find the source for this. A Ham suggested this and another program or two to a digital group ( I am on most of them). I had it saved but took a hit on the Laptop/Vista machine and had to rebuild it from scratch and cannot find the replies(late last year) that were sent. Nor can I find it by researching the groups. I know, from watching this reflector that many of you run the same programs I run. So I thought I would start here. A Ham will know what I need and why I need it to function in a certain way. I hope you can help. Any help or suggested programs would be appreciated. Thanks, 73 >>>Try QuickMix: <http://www.ptpart.co.uk/quickmix/> 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] sound card manager software
Are you looking for "Quick Mix"? http://www.ptpart.co.uk/quickmix/ 73 Dave KB3MOW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Hal Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 9:10 PM To: DigitalRadio Subject: [digitalradio] sound card manager software To The Group: The "sound card manager software" is about all I can think to call this program. It would allow you to set up different settings for each program you use with your soundcard and not have to constantly change mixer settings. For an example, you run Echolink,click this "program" and the Echolink settings come up. You run MultiPsk and those preset settings were saved and named and your ready to run the MultiPsk program. Ect etc. I have a new AMD/Dual Core Desktop machine running XP Pro. 3GB ram,1GB Radeon Card, 2.7 speed, 500 GB HD,multi-monitor set up. I run DxLab suite,N1MM/Mtty,MultiPsk,Echolink and work SSB on morning chats. I have a AFSK interface for my digital modes and logging. Why, you ask? Because several weeks ago on 40 meter chat the group said you have a Bad Feed back in the audio. I was at a loss. I had been running two NetVista desktops. One for digital programs, the other for SSB and Echolink. It was no problem because they ran independent of one another. Now I have a Workhorse AMD Machine and it won't function the way I want it to. I learned that by disconnecting the speaker line from the new AMD machine, no feedback into SSB chats.I could mute the line-out, no feedback. Now I go into to set up the Multipsk and I have to reset the soundcard settings. If I want to play music on the New machine the same thing occurs. That is the problem. It may have been on one of the other digital groups , but I can't find the source for this. A Ham suggested this and another program or two to a digital group ( I am on most of them). I had it saved but took a hit on the Laptop/Vista machine and had to rebuild it from scratch and cannot find the replies(late last year) that were sent. Nor can I find it by researching the groups. I know, from watching this reflector that many of you run the same programs I run. So I thought I would start here. A Ham will know what I need and why I need it to function in a certain way. I hope you can help. Any help or suggested programs would be appreciated. Thanks, 73 Hal WD4MDA Jacksonville FL
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Direct RTTY Generation
>>>AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of IMR Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 6:04 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Direct RTTY Generation >In your MMTTY folder (the one that contains the file mmtty.exe), >is the file extfsk.dll present? > > No. n fact that file is nowhere to be found on the machine at all :-( >>>The standard MMTTY installation package includes EXTFSK.dll So guess I need to go back to your download page and find it. >>>I sent you a copy via email. Its all getting too complicated - the design was a request for a simple Tx for beginners that wasn't yet another CW QRP transmitter - and I was hoping RTTY would be as dead-simple to get going as it used to be back in the days of yore. Clearly not. It might even be easier to wrirte my own simple RTTY Tx terminal in VB6. Waggling the TXD line using the "MSComm1.Break = True/False" function will do the job if timing can be assured. >>>Travelling to Alpha Centauri will be easy if the Warp Drive can be assured. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Direct RTTY Generation
>>>AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of IMR Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 9:09 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Direct RTTY Generation OK Tnx... found the COM port output facility and got it working on a Desktop with a proper COM1. But when I tried a USB COM port - as suspected it wouldn't work directly. On trying the EXTFSK option, it just comes back with a message that says "Can't Configure EXTFSK" Downloaded the latest MMTTY version 1.66G, just to make sure. >>>In your MMTTY folder (the one that contains the file mmtty.exe), is the file extfsk.dll present? What I'm not sure about, if EXTFSK is set as the data output option, how does the software know which USB Comport is to be used for its output of the data - if that makes sense :-) >>>When you configure MMTTY to use EXTFSK for FSK output, an EXTFSK window appears that lets you select the serial port, as well as the serial port pin (TxD, RTS, DTR) that will be used to generate the FSK signal. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Direct RTTY Generation
>>>AA6YQ comments below. -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of AC TALBOT Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 5:46 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Direct RTTY Generation A back-to-basics question for once... Is there any modern RTTY datacomms software that gives a single wire digital output for driving an FSK transmitter? Looked in the MultiPSK and MMTTY setup menus and nothing. >>>MMTTY provides this "FSK signal" via the TxD pin of the serial port specified in the "PTT & FSK" panel on the "Setup MMTTY" window's "TX" tab. Since using this signal requires a serial port capable of 45 baud operation, which some USB-to-serial-port-adaptors can't do, you can set the "PTT & FSK" panel's port selector to EXTFSK, which displays a window that lets you configure the generation of an FSK signal on a serial port's RTS or DTR pins. In this latter configuration, the timing of the FSK signal is software-generated, and thus less accurate than that generated by a 45 baud serial port. >>>Digital mode applications that use MMTTY as their "RTTY Engine" -- WinWarbler, HamScope, etc. -- thus offer this capability. While I realise there may be little call for such a one-wire drive now >>>Not true! Modern transceivers provide RX filtering for RTTY that is only availalble when the transceiver is operated in RTTY mode, thus requiring the "FSK signal" when transmitting. Icom's ic-7200, ic-7600, ic-7700, and ic-7800 all provide a very nice twin-peak filter that is only available in RTTY mode. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Hellschreiber on-air comparison
Also available in Fldigi. On Aug 2, 2010, at 8:32 PM, Tony wrote: > All in all, FSK-Hell does offer better readability over Feld Hell. Click > on the link below to see an on-air and example of how the modes > compared. FSK-Hell is available in IZ8BLY's Hellschreiber (FM-Hell), > DM780, MixW and Multipsk. Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net
Re: [digitalradio] Ubuntu - thank you
Great idea. Just remember, the "Windows way" of doing things doesn't always translate into Ubuntu. Give Ubuntu a good period of time, learn to use it, and you will not regret it. Dave On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 7:53 PM, n0alo wrote: > > > Thank you everyone for the very usefull information. The response was > great!. I think I will install > both on the HD so I can choose on boot-up for the time being. I have been > told that once using > Ubuntu for awhile, I will never want to go back to windows. We will see. > Thanks again > Lynn > > -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
Re: [digitalradio] Ubuntu
Ubuntu is an operating system, like Windows. It DOES NOT run Windows programs natively. The programs that Peter mentioned were ALL linux (Ubuntu) programs. Linux has most necessary drivers for most hardware out there. It would handle the sound card, modem, speaker, etc the same way Windows does in effect. If you are ever curious, you can download the Ubuntu ISO file, burn it to disc and start up a "live cd" install of Ubuntu. This loads Ubuntu into memory WITHOUT making any changes to the hard drive. It gives you an opportunity to test drive the support for your hardware without making any permanent changes, and then assuming everything is working, it lets you install the OS on the computer as well. You can have a hard disc that is "dual boot", meaning it can run both Windows AND Ubuntu; you simply select one or the other at the prompt during boot-up. With Linux, there are a LOT of options. I have to agree with Phil's comments that one shouldn't look to run Windows software under Linux, but rather look for the best Linux tools out there to do the job. Dave On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Ted Bear wrote: > > > I wonder...? I never played with Linux but in Peter's reply he mentions > several Windows programs. Does this mean that Ubuntu can be loaded on > lets say a laptop ... and then run as the only operating system.. Once > machine was running under Ubuntu .. Am I to understand that > > it would run..Windows type .EXE programs without any modification. ..?? > (Substituting for Windows OPSYS.) > , > If so... How would Linux handle the mouse..sound card..Mike and Spkr > output.. etc. etc. Or do I read that all wrong and what is happening is > that Windows is handling all the various driver applications and Linux would > be just another program running under Windows. And maybe the Ham > applications would be special versions coded to run under Linux.??? > , > I hope these are not dumb questions that must seem elementary to Linux > users..But it sure would open up some great ham radio possibilities for use > of some of the old laptops I have..? So any information would be > appreciated. If this is too far from the digital radio thread I sure would > like any links or info sent direct to my E-Mail (w7...@juno.com) Thanks > in advance es 73... Ted-W7RHB > -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
Re: [digitalradio] re: Ubuntu
Ubuntu is Linux, and will NOT run Windows programs normally. Some will run using a windows emulator called WINE, which emulates some Windows functions, but not all. I didn't know about any of those programs in particular; but a quick check of the wine website indicates the following: MMSSTV - Works in Ubuntu using WINE The others are not listed in the AppDB for WINE or have indicated problems. One other alternative is to run Ubuntu, then install Windows in a Virtual Machine using any of the various VM software tools out there. Then you are running those apps in real Windows, which is being run and hosted on Ubuntu. Also, Ubuntu (and Linux in general) has A LOT of great ham radio software. They may be different than your normal software tools, but many are as good as (or even superior to) their Windows counterparts. Fldigi is arguably one of the best digital software packages out there, and it is designed for Linux (also works on OS X and Windows). There are also SSTV, DX Cluster, Logging, CW, and many other ham-related packages available. Dave On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 7:06 PM, n0alo wrote: > > > About other programs, well I also like mmtty, mmsstv, easypal, kgstv and > several others. > A friend told me that Ubuntu should also run those with no problem, is this > true? > Lynn > __ > > > -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
Re: [digitalradio] Ubuntu
But the original question was regarding "various windows digi software", so the answer should address things like: Ham Radio Deluxe, DX Lab Suite, EasyPAL, etc. Listing off a group of Linux software doesn't answer the question. That being said, WSJT, WSPR, Fldigi CQRLog and others are all GREAT programs on Ubuntu...especially CQRlog and Fldigi; so why would you need windows software for most applications. Dave On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Peter Frenning wrote: > > > ons, 28 07 2010 kl. 16:50 -0500, skrev n0alo: > > > > Has anyone in the group tried the various windows digi software with > Ubuntu? If so please contact me off list. > > Don't want to start a long thread on here. > > Thanks > > Lynn > > > No let's keep it public - others might be interested. > I'm running Ubuntu 10.04 (32-bit) with WSJT, WSPR, FLdigi, gMFSK all work > flawlessly. > Also I'm using CQRlog, and xdx (DX-cluster SW) and grig (rudimentary rig > control) > > I have also used QSSTV in the past, but lost interest. > > Try searching for "ham" in the SWcenter > > Vy 73 de OZ1PIF/5Q2M, Peter > > * > ** Genius is one per cent inspiration, ** > ** and ninety-nine per cent** > ** perspiration. ** > ** -- Thomas A. Edison ** > * > email: peter(no-spam filler)@frenning.dk > http://www.frenning.dk/oz1pif.htm > Ph. +45 4619 3239 > Snailmail: > Peter Frenning > Ternevej 23 > DK-4130 Viby Sj. > Denmark > * > > > -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
RE: AW: AW: AW: [digitalradio] ROS v 4.8.X not spamming cluster
Thanks, Laurie. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Laurie, VK3AMA Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 3:08 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: [digitalradio] ROS v 4.8.X not spamming cluster Yes Dave, Apart from my test PC virus/malware protection, whenever there is a change in an executable or dll I run them through an online scanner (20MB file limit) here http://virusscan.jotti.org/en/ It runs the submitted file through 19 different scanners, with the occasional false-positive on one or two. Results of the scans are shared with the anti-virus companies. The site generates a permalink for each file that allows you to distribute the scanning results to whomever. Just ran the 3 executables through the site Cluster.exe http://virusscan.jotti.org/en/scanresult/7142b3c4c3e3076d5f55aa826a272678a67d1cbb PSKReporter.exe http://virusscan.jotti.org/en/scanresult/b8e275b738f1634bcc24fa081b1a83eb27e1289c ROS v4.8.4 Beta.exe http://virusscan.jotti.org/en/scanresult/e6e6238fb976a46d4db4dae564d59c5f2757ab73 de Laurie, VK3AMA On 25/07/2010 1:29 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote: > > > Has anyone checked to see whether the ROS code contains a keylogger, > trojans, or a rootkit? > 73, > Dave, AA6YQ >
RE: AW: AW: AW: [digitalradio] ROS v 4.8.X not spamming cluster
Has anyone checked to see whether the ROS code contains a keylogger, trojans, or a rootkit? 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of KH6TY Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 7:37 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: [digitalradio] ROS v 4.8.X not spamming cluster > >Jose uses Cluster Auto-Spots to advertise his software. The more spots, > >the more it appears to be a popular mode to the uninformed Cluster User. To me, this attempted deception has been obvious ever since the issue of any auto-spots came up. Isn't there any honesty at all possible with this author! :-( This wholesale abuse of ham radio traditions and spamming clusters, etc. by this author, is just not acceptable, and to my knowledge has never been done before. 73, Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Question on bandwidth on HF (n9dsj)
JTMS is 1500 BPS? Could it exceed the 300 baud limit on a single carrier, like PSK500 does? That wouldn't strictly be a B/W issue, but it would be a rule violation on HF. -- Dave Sparks -- AF6AS - Original Message - From: "n9dsj" To: Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:26 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Question on bandwidth on HF (n9dsj) Hi Russell, Not sure (I am not the lawyer in my family:) but suspect due to its signal rate it is legal. I asked the question on the HF JT65 board but no definitive response. ISCAT is 23 baud at 1500 Hz and JTMS is 1500 bps and the bandwidth 2250 Hz. You are correct that it may be more of an issue as to where in the band you were transmitting more so than the legality of its usage. I am not sure of the advantage of ISCAT on HF, aside from perhaps on a scatter path to 10/12 meters and it is down 10 dB or so in sensitivity from JT65/JT8/JT2/JT4 modes; albeit uses a 30 second sequence like JT6M. I have only previously seen it used on 6 meters and above. Of course some people simply do not like the wider modes in general, hence the inevitable controversy. 73, Bill N9DSJ
QRE: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
The ARRL withdrew its "regulation by bandwidth instead of mode" proposal before the FCC responded. This proposal generated a lot of commentary from the US amateur community, all of which remains available online. If you review these, you will find that most comments opposing the proposal cited the QRM caused by unattended digital stations, whose permitted range would have been dramatically increased had the proposal been adopted. Opposition to this proposal was "anti-QRM", not "anti-wide". An unattended station running a narrow mode without an effective busy frequency detector is as offensive as an unattended station running a wide mode without an effective busy frequency detector; neither belongs on the amateur bands. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of "John Becker, WOJAB" Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 2:10 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA At 12:19 PM 7/20/2010, you wrote: >Do you know if any US amateurs are raising a Petition for Rulemaking to move to regulation by bandwidth instead of mode ? Trevor, We in the USA have been down this path before. And every time the FCC has said the same thing. I really don't know just where you are trying to go but it seems that it is again an "anti wide" rant. If it is you can save the rest of us from it. John, W0JAB
Re: AW: AW: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
Well said, Skip. I also noticed a few days ago on the ROSDIGITALMODEM group that W4CMM had contacted the FCC asking for a revisit of the ROS issue. They reiterated their stance regarding ROS. To excerpt the response from the FCC: "FCC position has not changed on ROS equipment." Check out the ROSDIGITALMODEM group or contact W4CMM for more information, but it looks like they're still sticking to the position. As Skip said; if you don't like it, file a petition to change the rule. Otherwise, complaining about it won't change a thing, and running the mode opens yourself up to whatever action the FCC decides to take. Dave K3DCW On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:51 PM, KH6TY wrote: > > > Hi Trevor, > > I have already previously stated that a FCC engineer with the FCC group > analyzing ROS told me what was done, and what was concluded, and I wa asked > not to divulge his name. Whether or not there was a report issued, I do not > know. > > I don't know of any US amateurs raising any petition to move to regulation > by bandwidth instead of by mode. This has already been denied by the FCC > once, so I doubt if it will be revisited soon, but nothing prevents anyone > from entering their own petition. However, it will not be me, because I > understand why spread spectrum of any kind on HF would not be good for the > ham community in the US in general, and that "regulation by bandwidth" had > its own serious problems. > > Remember that the US ham population is very large, and what we are allowed > to do here can affect many hams worldwide, due to the worldwide nature of > propagation. You need to count your blessings that the FCC regulations keep > automatic mailboxes confined to the FCC-designated subbands for unattended > stations (when other countries do not), because without those, a hoard of US > amateurs could flood the bands with mailboxes, interfering with DX and > ragchew QSO's all over the world. You have to be careful what you wish for! > Hi! > > As you say, we have been around this loop before, and, especially since > Tony's tests show no weak signal advantage to the ROS wide spread spectrum > variants over the narrowband variants, I think it is time to stop beating > this horse to death and move on to something more constructive. > > I think that Andy previously set a cutoff date for ROS discussions on this > reflector, and it is probably time for him to do that again, since arguments > are getting to be circular and sometimes degenerate into personal attacks or > insults. > > The ROSmodem Yahoo group is always available for continued discussions for > users of the mode and has not been killed as was threatened. > > I always try to answer comments or criticisms directed to me, but I really > have a lot to do to keep up with kit orders for my interface in the July QST > and cannot keep on answering emails about ROS over and over. > > I have said all I can say, so I want to leave this discussion right now! > > I hope you understand... > > Thanks! > > 73, Skip KH6TY > -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
BINGO!!! I invoke Godwin's Law!!! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law Dave NK7Z On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:56:58 -0700 (PDT) AA0OI thus spake: > Spoken like a good Nazi > > Garrett / AA0OI > > > > > > From: Thomas F. Giella NZ4O > To: digital radio eGroup > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:18:24 PM > Subject: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA > > If I print any ham in the U.S. transmitting via the ROS mode I'm going to > call Laura Smith of the FCC and give her the callsign of the offender. > > 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 > > > > >
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Enough of this juvenile garbage. Amateur radio in the US is governed by regulations to which we agree to abide when we are granted a license. These regulations are particularly important in amateur radio because we all share one set of frequencies. These regulations are not perfect; in particular, the regulation constraining Spread Spectrum usage is insufficiently precise, and as a result precludes the use of techniques on HF that the FCC would likely approve given a competent exposition. In this situation, an amateur radio operator interested in using these techniques on HF should hold off until the regulation has been changed to permit their use, contributing to or leading the effort to change the regulation if capable. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking the FCC for their view of whether a particular mode or technique is legal under the current regulations. The knowledge that many amateurs are confused about what constitutes Spread Spectrum should if anything make the FCC more receptive to a proposal to clarify the regulation. The claim that asking the FCC a question can kill amateur radio is amazingly ridiculous; asking the FCC a question is more likely to teleport the Loch Ness Monster into your swimming pool than kill amateur radio. Unlike broadcast television stations, amateur radio operators don't individually negotiate their licenses with the FCC. Thus the comments below regarding regulations being trumped by station permits negotiated by attorneys is completely irrelevant. The nasty name-calling that appears below and in previous posts today is flat-out unacceptable. Were I moderator of this group, the offending parties would be long gone. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of W2XJ Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 10:10 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! Skip if you call this a regulation, I agree with Garret. It is a misguided one and a victim of unintended consequences. The whole discussion is stupid and you, Skip, are too anal retentive. I work in broadcast and there are many un-updated FCC regulations that the commission subsequently licenses in a manner contrary to their own rules. Look at the FCC definition of translator and then tell me how under the letter of the law how AM and HD-2 and HD-3 stations can legally use that service. Regardless stations get legal permits every day. Washington is a town of double and denial speak, the rules mean next to nothing in many cases. What your communications attorney can wring out of them is all that counts. It is whiners like you that damage the system. Ham radio is supposed to be self regulating which means please do not disturb the FCC. I guess you still do not get it. People like you will kill this hobby. On 7/19/10 8:56 PM, "KH6TY" wrote: > Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI "Common sense" says follow the regulations, because they were made for the benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to do what they wish without regard for others that want to use the bands. Regulations are not "guide lines" - they are LAW for the benefit of all. Band plans are "guide lines", not regulations. What may seen nit picking to you may seem necessary to others. The regulations are a great balancing act to both protect and enable as many users to be treated as fairly as possible. 73, Skip KH6TY On 7/19/2010 8:42 PM, AA0OI wrote: The rules and regulations are a "guide line" they were never meant to be written on 2 stone tablets and prayed to on the seventh day.. if everyone followed every little nit picking rule and regulation the world would come to a stand still.. (the government told Wilbur and Orville that they were "forbidden" to fly) I'm sure everyone drives the speed limit too.. Just use common sense.. Garrett / AA0OI From: "John Becker, WØJAB" To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett? John, W0JAB At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote: >What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all along... NO FCC at my door,, NO FBI,, NO KGB.. You are all fighting for something that no one cares about.. Cross all the T's and Dot all the I's--- but the key is NO ONE is looking to see if its been done.. >And ANYONE who puts "Our Freedom" and "Absurd" in the same sentence needs to move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you ! > >Garrett / AA0OI12c1104.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA
Actually, it's less than half of a 6 Khz. wide AM signal. -- Dave - AF6AS - Original Message - From: bg...@comcast.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Operating ROS In USA so, for the sake of the argument, suppose its not SS, next question: is it wider that an a.m. signal, of good communications quality?
RE: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE
I just renewed my license via ULS, as described below. I had an FRN, but no
password, so I requested a password on Monday 7/12 and received one
immediately via email. After logging in, I applied for renewal, which took
less than a minute. Yesterday morning, I logged in to check the status of my
renewal, and found that it had been issued on 7/13; a hardcopy arrived by
postal mail yesterday afternoon.
I don't see how this process could be any simpler...
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of J. Moen
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 1:30 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE
John,
There is an FCC Registration Number (FRN) associated with your call. You
need the FRN and a password to logon to FCC's Universal Licensing System
(ULS).
Go to http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchLicense.jsp and search
for your callsign. It's there, of course, and so is your FRN. Write that
down. Before you go any farther, you should know the FCC database says your
call expires 7/31/2011. So you have a year to do this, and as I recall, you
cannot renew until there are 90 days to go.
When you do the renewal process next year , you'll need your password. If
you've done this before in the past, it may be burried in your files.
However, it is more likely that when you got your license, the VE did all
the FCC paperwork for you, and you were automatically assigned an FRN but
you never set up a password. So you will need to set one up. Go to
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/licManager/login.jsp - enter your FRN and
click on Forgot your password? "Contact Tech Support". First you'll need
to "Set Personal Security Question".
I'd recommend you get all that set up now, including a password, then save
the FRN and password in your files so it will be easy to log on and renew
when it is time.
There's a simpler alternative. The major VECs like ARRL and W5YI Group
offer renewal services for a small fee.
ARRL's is described at http://www.arrl.org/call-sign-renewals-or-changes
The W5YI Group's process is at http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=87
You've got plenty of time, the way I read the FCC database.
Jim - K6JM
- Original Message -
From: Chris Robinson
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE
I use the free method of the
FCC.http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/index.htm?job=home
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:18 AM, "John Becker, WØJAB"
wrote:
What does one have to do to re-new their ticket on-line
now? Been so lone I forgot
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] New question
Why would anyone want to use any version of this software? Which is better; the software that sends out false reports that you can block, or the software that sends out false reports that you can't? In any case, it is doing who knows what in the background. The fact that Jose has now coded a new version that you can't block simply indicates that there is more to this than just the spots to the cluster. Why must it have access to the internet to work? What else does it send out that is so important that the software MUST have access to the internet?? Such activity would be considered a major threat to computer security in most circles. Am I the only one that wonders this? Wow! Dave K3DCW On Jul 15, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Robert Bennett wrote: > > Everyone better use V1.0 then, or we shall end up using different versions > that don't talk to each other! > > > - Original Message - > From: Siegfried Jackstien > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:34 PM > Subject: AW: [digitalradio] New question > > All versions after the first 1.0 (the new 1.0, 470beta and 471 beta) close > after a while if adifdata can get no inet > > So if you wanna use that soft WITHOUT sending spots you should keep the old > 1.0 > > > > > Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net
Re: [digitalradio] New question
Wasn't that part of the infamous fake FCC response that Jose posted on his website? On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Rein A wrote: > 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 > > > Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net
RE: [digitalradio] Re: [digital radio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
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 n
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum
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: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
I'm all for itI've been "anti-ROS" since I read the Spread Spectrum description in the original documentation. My point, and Siegfried's as well, is that you can't say that a whole multi-mode package is illegal simply because one mode in it is illegal. I think that is fairly supportive of all of the other LEGAL modes out there, of which there are dozens! Dave On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 3:39 PM, wrote: > > > > Hi Dave, > > Why don't we try to meet this thing head on, instead of saying > too difficult, too boring, fed up and tired of talking, thinking > about it. > Please lets move on, there are other digital methods, why not just > use those? > > 73 Rein W6SZ > > -Original Message- > >From: Dave Wright > > >Sent: Jul 12, 2010 7:25 PM > >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? > > > >Sigi, > > > >Have to agree with you here. > > > >Since Spread Spectrum is not authorized in the US below 220MHz, and since > >CHIP 64/128 is Spread Spectrum, no one in the US can use MultiPSK since it > >includes CHIP??? Well, of course, that isn't the case. Logic would > have > >to prevail, but with the negativity towards ROS, everyone in the US would > be > >better off just staying away from it except about 220MHz. > > > >Dave > >K3DCW > > > > > > > >On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Siegfried Jackstien < > >siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de > 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 > … > >> right?? > >> > >> Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong > >> > >> Sigi > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >-- > >Dave > >K3DCW > >www.k3dcw.net > > > >"Real radio bounces off of the sky" > > > -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?
Sigi, Have to agree with you here. Since Spread Spectrum is not authorized in the US below 220MHz, and since CHIP 64/128 is Spread Spectrum, no one in the US can use MultiPSK since it includes CHIP??? Well, of course, that isn't the case. Logic would have to prevail, but with the negativity towards ROS, everyone in the US would be better off just staying away from it except about 220MHz. Dave K3DCW On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Siegfried Jackstien < siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de> 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 … > right?? > > Just my understanding of laws ,, but I may be wrong > > Sigi > > > > -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
Re: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum
In the original FCC statement on this topic back in March (released via the ARRL), they stated that they did feel that ROS was Spread Spectrum because that was indeed what Jose called it. As they put it, the developer should know what he developed. They further went on to say that it was up to each individual operator to be aware of what is being transmitted from their station. So, the way I see it, it isn't up to the FCC to prove that ROS is Spread Spectrumthey've spoken and have issued a decision like it or not. If they come knocking on your door (yes, they still do it from time to time), it will be up to you to prove that ROS IS NOT spread spectrum. Unless you're capable of doing so, you'd be safer simply not using it. Or, in other words, is your use of ROS worth $10,000 or more in fines? Dave K3DCW On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:52 PM, W2XJ wrote: > > > Why do you persist in getting the FCC involved? You are potentially > damaging the hobby as a whole. If one is qualified to hold a license the FCC > presumes ones ability to determine what operations are legal. > > > -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
[digitalradio] Posted on ROSMODEM home page
ROS 1.0 (the last)<http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/ros-1-0-the-last/> 11 July, 2010 by José Alberto Nieto Ros I’ve been reading too many derogatory comments towards me in Digital Group and ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP so I understand that it is not worth further evolve this software. So, ROS 1.0 is the last version. 73, Jose Alberto *(Comments in this blog have been disabled)* -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
Re: [digitalradio] ROS Developer will continue to auto-spot despite complaints
Just goes to show that he reads the boards and keeps track of what is going on. Now, how easy would it be to program a button to disable the function with one toggle in the software? Very easy! Then he could open it to everyone to decide whether they want the reporting or not. Since he won't allow this, and says take it or leave it, one must truly question what else it does or can do. Dave K3DCW On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Laurie, VK3AMA wrote: > from his website > http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/ros-and-cluster/ > > Jose says... > > > ROS uses a system that send reports to the DX Cluster automatically. > > > > This is useful to know who are listen you and the system is done so as > not to saturate the cluster (only send some spot). > > > > If you are not agree with this function that help to the communication, > don’t use ROS software. > > Interpret that as you want. > > de Laurie, VK3AMA > > > > > 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 > > > > -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Testing Confirms ROS Autospot Behaviour
I'm not sure if it still requires it, but many early users gladly gave over their gmail account passwords (required at the time) to the program without question, so why would they care (or even know) if it did anything else? On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 5:25 PM, g4ilo wrote: > > > As a (retired) amateur software developer myself I cannot imagine why the > developer did it this way instead of letting people pick their own cluster > (preferably one located near them) and send their own spots manually. It > would have been easier. Connecting to random servers and sending randomly > selected text strings is often a hallmark of malware. Perhaps he has > developed a clever way of stealing passwords without people realizing it? > You know, like those coded messages where the secret text was made from the > first letter of every line. I'm not saying it's actually likely but you have > to wonder why he has made such a bizarre design decision. > > If nothing else it shows how easy it is to get people to load software on > their computer when they have no real idea who the developer is or what the > software may be doing. > > Julian, G4ILO > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com , > "Laurie, VK3AMA" wrote: > > > > Yesterday I ran some tests and can confirm that ROS software (Betas > > 4.5.7, 4.5.8, 4.6.0 & 4.6.2) is auto-spotting to the cluster without any > > control from the op. > > > > ROS has hard-coded the following Clusters and connects to one of these > > if possible. > > > > dxc.us6iq.com > > dxc.ham.hr > > 9a0dxc.hamradio.hr > > remo3.renet.ru > > cluster.sk4bw.net > > ax25.org > > sk3w.se > > sector7.nu > > sm7gvf.dyndns.org > > > > I setup my internet router to re-route these addresses (and ports) to a > > Cluster Node I have setup locally for testing to avoid spotting to the > > live Cluster. > > > > Then left the ROS software in RX mode (no TX) monitoring 20M. Over 20 > > spots were generated over a 2 hour period. Different comment strings > > were sent in the spots. > > > > A closer inspection of the internal code of ROS reveals randomising code > > (select a random string) and the following hard-coded Cluster spotting > > strings. > > > > "tnx ros mode" > > "73 ROS Mode" > > "tnx fer ROS QSO" > > "ROS 599" > > "ROS 559" > > "CQ ROS" > > "CQ ROS Mode" > > "CQ ROS." > > "ROS" > > "ros" > > "599 ROS Mode" > > "73, ros mode" > > "ROS, 73" > > "tu ROS Mode" > > "ROS test" > > "copy ROS Mode - dB" > > "ROS QSO " > > "ros mode " > > "ROS Mode " > > "599 ROS - dB" > > "ROS - dB at " > > "ROS CQ - dB" > > "ROS. TNX QSO. 73 " > > > > , are substitued with the configured settings and the > > received S/N ratio. > > > > Clearly the use of several variations of text, mixing upper- & > > lower-case letters, 599 & 559 reports is all designed to make anyone > > viewing the Cluster think that these ROS spots are Human generated and > > not auto-spot spam. > > > > The ROS developer has NOT documented, in ether the User Guide or FAQ, > > this auto-spot advertising facility of his software. > > > > My observations. > > > > de Laurie, VK3AMA > > > > > -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
Re: [digitalradio] Re: [ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP] Pirate behavior
Yes, he is spotting on 14112but a lot of those spots were on 14115 and 14103 which he is not monitoring. Dave K3DCW On Jul 10, 2010, at 10:40 AM, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > Steinar, > > I believe you are reporting ( spotting ) stations at 14.112 > > because you are using ROS with your call inserted or not? > > I do not think this fake or am I wrong? > > You are not telling us that ROS is not running on your computer > and receiver or? > > 73 Rein W6SZ > > -Original Message- > >From: Steinar Aanesland > >Sent: Jul 10, 2010 9:19 AM > >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, * ROSDIGITALMODEMGROU > > > >Subject: [ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP] Pirate behavior > > > > > >Hi all > > > >I've done a little experiment this morning. I left my radio on 14112.0 > >and went shopping. > >When I came back, the ROS software had uploaded this reports to the cluster: > > > > > >LA5VNA 14103.0 ON3JMD copy ROS Mode -23 dB > >1233 10 Jul Belgium > >LA5VNA 14115.0 UX1CN tnx fer ROS QSO > >1231 10 Jul Ukraine > >LA5VNA 14112.0 IW7DGY ROS test > >1228 10 Jul Italy > >LA5VNA 14103.0 LZ1ZJ CQ ROS > >1212 10 Jul Bulgaria > >LA5VNA 14115.0 UT3HA 599 ROS Mode > >1207 10 Jul Ukraine > >LA5VNA 14103.0 DG8YFM ROS CQ -17 dB > >1122 10 Jul Germany > >LA5VNA 14115.0 EA3AGZ ros mode > >1059 10 Jul Spain > >LA5VNA 14115.0 SP3HC ROS test, > >1049 10 Jul Poland > >LA5VNA 14112.0 EB1MS ROS, 73 > >1032 10 Jul Spain > >LA5VNA 14115.0 US5VAC ROS test, > >1017 10 Jul Ukraine > >LA5VNA 14115.0 EB3JT tnx ros mode > >0956 10 Jul Spain > > > >Not only is it a fake message , the software lies about the frequency too. > > > >This is nothing more then pirate behavior.. > > > >LA5VNA Steinar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS are sending data from your PC - banned call list
"even Jose would understand it to be insane to have programs distributed with built-in banned lists." Well, maybe he removed it, but it was definitely there at one timeso maybe it was temporary insanity? Dave K3DCW On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Rein A wrote: > > > > > Dave. > > I tried that , transmitting into dummy load yesterday with John's > call and I told John that it did work on my computer. > > John then replied that he thought once the computer had been on the > banned list it was useless for ever for running ROS ( some in the registry > perhaps ) > We then talked about testing his xyl's computer computer. We all know now > what happened there. > > As I thought and expressed here a few times, even Jose would understand it > to be insane to have programs distributed with built-in banned lists. > > My procedure is as follows. > > Rename old ROS directory > make new directory ROS. > download new version ( almost daily operation but that is OK > past download in ROS directory > extract program zipped file > use Install Script > create new short cut > paste new shortcut > click shortcut > make sure waterfall is turned on > for new installations check audio level settings of selected > sound cards. Like to see some noise on waterfall. > make sure program gets audio from receiver, WEBSDR or other audio source. > no configuration ( no Call for cluster problem ) > > Has always worked here without a any problem. Program locates always > the correct sound card > > 73 Rein W6SZ > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com , Dave > Wright wrote: > > > > So, did you actually transmit using another op's call sign? Or, did you > just > > plug them in and say that it works? As I recall, the non-grata ops could > > enter their calls during setup but it would not transmit. So, unless > G4ILO, > > K5OKC, N1SZ or I (or other banned ops) actually decide to try to > transmit, > > it doesn't mean a thing. > > > > Dave > > K3DCW > > > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:06 PM, pd4u_dares wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I tried the new ROS version 4.6.0. and K5OKC,N1SZ and G4ILO worked. So > the > > > "hard coded banned call list" no longer exists. > > > > > > Marc, PD4U > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > > 40yahoogroups.com>, Dave > > > > Wright wrote: > > > > > > > > The discussion of the persona-non-grata list was started here: > > > > http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742&highlight=ros. It > starts > > > > getting pretty interesting around page 4 or 5. > > > > > > > > In March, the list consisted of the following calls: * > > > > K5OKC,N1SZ,G4ILO,W4PC,W9IQ,KY5U,KQ6XA,G0GQK,N3RQ,N1SZ,KC4ARAN, > > > > GW7AAV,WA1ZMS,K3DCWyep, N1SZ got the good double whammy > probation. > > > > > > > > *Since that time, Jose has taken steps to further hide the list in > the > > > code > > > > by changing his programming environment, making it much harder to > > > decompile > > > > the list. I'm not sure anyone has tried recently. > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:44 PM, wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to know about the list. > > > > > > > > > > If it does exists, I will fight for radio amateur's loyalty to > > > > > stop using ROS until the list is removed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Dave > > > > K3DCW > > > > www.k3dcw.net > > > > > > > > "Real radio bounces off of the sky" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Dave > > K3DCW > > www.k3dcw.net > > > > "Real radio bounces off of the sky" > > > > > -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS are sending data from your PC - banned call list
So, did you actually transmit using another op's call sign? Or, did you just plug them in and say that it works? As I recall, the non-grata ops could enter their calls during setup but it would not transmit. So, unless G4ILO, K5OKC, N1SZ or I (or other banned ops) actually decide to try to transmit, it doesn't mean a thing. Dave K3DCW On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:06 PM, pd4u_dares wrote: > > > > I tried the new ROS version 4.6.0. and K5OKC,N1SZ and G4ILO worked. So the > "hard coded banned call list" no longer exists. > > Marc, PD4U > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com , Dave > Wright wrote: > > > > The discussion of the persona-non-grata list was started here: > > http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742&highlight=ros. It starts > > getting pretty interesting around page 4 or 5. > > > > In March, the list consisted of the following calls: * > > K5OKC,N1SZ,G4ILO,W4PC,W9IQ,KY5U,KQ6XA,G0GQK,N3RQ,N1SZ,KC4ARAN, > > GW7AAV,WA1ZMS,K3DCWyep, N1SZ got the good double whammy probation. > > > > *Since that time, Jose has taken steps to further hide the list in the > code > > by changing his programming environment, making it much harder to > decompile > > the list. I'm not sure anyone has tried recently. > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:44 PM, wrote: > > > > > > > > I want to know about the list. > > > > > > If it does exists, I will fight for radio amateur's loyalty to > > > stop using ROS until the list is removed. > > > > > > > > -- > > Dave > > K3DCW > > www.k3dcw.net > > > > "Real radio bounces off of the sky" > > > > > -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
>>>AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 4:31 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC Hi Dave, Let me ask your a question after assuring that the use of ROS world wide is increasing rapidly. We can ignore that, as most do, we can be mad about it, we can as US licensed radio amateurs say it does not concern us,it is not fair, etc etc. If there is such a list, I plan to make a real big stink about it. I am disappointed that John as a potential member on the list, does not want to research that. But then I can't force people. Have plenty idea;'s about doing that. But before starting such an action I like to know whether such a list still exists or not. Is that unreal? >>>I don't know what you mean by "unreal", but it's certainly a waste of time >>>as far as you, W0JAB, or I am concerned. US operators can't use ROS on HF >>>whether they're on the list or not. I tried to contact the ARRL just a few minutes ago and was given a go around, from one phone number to another, 20 minutes waiting. Friday afternoon in CT, with the Executive Chief Officer out of the country? >>>Given that it represents the interests of US operators, you'll have a >>>difficult time convincing the ARRL to do anything about a mode that US >>>operators can't use on HF anyway. The IARU would be the more appropriate >>>organization with which to raise this issue. Do not want to start here a flame war on the ARRL. But is this not the place to discuss issues related to digital modes? >>>Yes it is. A digital mode with a list of banned calls? >>>Certainly, though of course Andy K3UK has the last word on this. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
>>>AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of "John Becker, WOJAB" Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 3:01 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC And many are still looking for an answer of why some (at one point or another) was banned from using the program. >>>John, no one but Jose knows why specific ops were banned from using his application. Empirically, one ham was added to the "persona non grata" list shortly after posting that he had asked the FCC whether or not ROS was legal. My callsign appeared on the list after I sought to verify with FCC personnel the claim on Jose's blog that the FCC had approved ROS for use by US amateurs -- a claim the FCC characterizes as both false and fabricated. Perhaps my "promotion" was motivated by some earlier perceived infraction, but its entirely irrelevant because ROS is not legal for use by US operators; it's like being put on the "no use of aviation frequencies" list. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
The discussion of the persona-non-grata list was started here: http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742&highlight=ros. It starts getting pretty interesting around page 4 or 5. In March, the list consisted of the following calls: * K5OKC,N1SZ,G4ILO,W4PC,W9IQ,KY5U,KQ6XA,G0GQK,N3RQ,N1SZ,KC4ARAN, GW7AAV,WA1ZMS,K3DCWyep, N1SZ got the good double whammy probation. *Since that time, Jose has taken steps to further hide the list in the code by changing his programming environment, making it much harder to decompile the list. I'm not sure anyone has tried recently. Dave On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:44 PM, wrote: > > I want to know about the list. > > If it does exists, I will fight for radio amateur's loyalty to > stop using ROS until the list is removed. > > -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC
US operators that avoid ROS because it is illegal in the US are not zombies, they are simply abiding by the regulations that govern amateur radio operation here and thus protecting their licenses. The immature antics of Jose Ros are most likely the result of an over-driven ego untempered by any understanding of the social aspects of amateur radio. Hopefully, some wise Elmer will take Jose in hand and help him grow up to more constructively apply his obvious technical talent. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 2:59 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC John, Why not give it a serious try? It's is worth getting to the bottom of this or perhaps not, Are we all becoming zombies? You are sort of accusing the author without really trying or proof. Some 3000 People on this reflector. Silence, silence. There has to be many on this board that can answer that question. If you do not want to show who you are. contact me of the reflector I will keep your input just between you and me. Don't want to be involved. Please let me just play. I am tired, don't bother me 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- >From: "John Becker, WØJAB" >Sent: Jul 9, 2010 2:18 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [digitalradio] ROS are sending data from your PC > >I think many would like to have a answer once and for all >on this issue if some have been "banned" from using the >software. > >John, W0JAB >digitalradio co moderator > >At 12:54 PM 7/9/2010, you wrote: >>Could this ROS discussion be taken offline or elsewhere? >> >>I expect others, like I, are sick of the rehashing. (And if you are sick >>please don't reply in support of this message - that would be as bad as the >>rehashing.) >> >>Andy?? >> >> >> - 73 - >>Rud Merriam K5RUD >>http://mysticlakesoftware.com/ > > > > > >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] my thoughts about ROS (was Ros on 40m)
The "hall of shame" consists of users that dared to criticize ROS as being too wide, being spread spectrum (illegal here in the US below 1.2m) or numerous other offenses that have never been explained. Personally, I'm in there because I made a post on QRZ asking to be in there so that I could join the rather distinguished group of those that have banned. I was offended that I hadn't been included since I had been a rather vocal opponent of the mode. I never said that Jose didn't take suggestions; however I did say that he needs to learn how to take suggestions AND criticism. Dave K3DCW On Jul 8, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Siegfried Jackstien wrote: > I do not know what you and the others in the hall of shame did that made jose > angry > He accepts suggestions (I asked for a function and a few versions later the > function was there) > > Has anybody in this blacklist ever read the read me text ??? there are > SEVERAL functions that jose implemented after suggestions of users > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] my thoughts about ROS (was Ros on 40m)
Just another part of the mystery, I guess Andy...a lot about ROS makes no sense one way or another. On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Andy obrien wrote: > > > There is one thing about Jose that does not make sense... if he is as > devious and untrustworthy ass some suggest...and he has had to put up with > much criticism and anguish, WHY does he persists with ROS? He has not asked > for money (that I am aware of), he has spent HOURS and HOURS adding new > features and responding to customer requests. Sure someone with > unscrupulous motives would have given up by now. > > Andy K3UK > > -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
Re: [digitalradio] my thoughts about ROS (was Ros on 40m)
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Siegfried Jackstien < siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de> wrote: > His interest is making a software that gets over the ocean under the > noiselevel with a few watts and a simple antenna ! > For what purpose? If he's not a ham, then it isn't to support the amateur community. However, I can think of a lot of uses for a low-power system using a low-profile antenna that is designed to work under the noise floor; especially useful for military, government, and even some more sinister uses. So his hobby is programming … he gives us a great soft for free and we > should take that chance > I think that a lot of people have a hard time with some of Jose's actions, such as hard-coding QRGs into the software, and hard-coding a persona-non-grata listing (in which I am included) of hams that are forbidden from using the software simply for criticizing some aspect of it. Since Jose isn't doing all of this work just for amateur radio, and since he isn't willing to accept criticism and suggestions from the amateur community, it is natural to question the ultimate purpose of the software. Until Jose comes clean, opens up the software to all amateurs (including those on the persona-non-grata list), and graciously accepts both suggestions and criticism, many people will continue to campaign strongly against the mode. There, I went the whole response without mentioning the (il)legality of the mode in the USA. -- Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
Re: [digitalradio] ROS on 40 meters
And I would recommend that anyone wanting to use ROS should be required to read this thread on QRZ which highlights some of the "shadier" aspects of this program. http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php...&highlight=ros And of course, you can search the archives of this mailing list for (literally) hundreds of messages discussing the legality of the mode in the US. Dave K3DCW On Jul 5, 2010, at 1:58 PM, phil g wrote: > > I'm bored, so I'll bite. > It is my understanding that in the US, ROS is only allowed above 222Mhz. > On 40M, you would be held to SWL status. > You should find it around 7.053 to 7.056. > > phil > n4zsa > - Original Message - > From: "John Becker, WØJAB" > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 1:43 PM > Subject: [digitalradio] ROS on 40 meters > > > What freq is the ROS mode being used on 40 Meters? > World like to play with it a bit. > > John > > > Dave www.k3dcw.net Real radio bounces off the sky
RE: [digitalradio] Busy detect screenshot for Winmor
+++ More AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of KH6TY Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 7:02 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Busy detect screenshot for Winmor >>>Its my impression that the WinMOR busy frequency detector has been well-characterized as effective (going back to its original deployment in SCAMP), so its not clear to me why more evaluation is required. More evaluation is required simply because it has not been tested in general use, so it may have been "characterized" as effective, but a full-blown use (in the subbands) will confirm that is characterization is correct. It will also show if there are people disabling the busy detector for reasons they deem necessary or convenient. +++ "in the subbands" is by definition not full-blown use. The safest way to find that out is to use it in the automatic subbands. This way, if it needs improvement, or people are disabling it, the least amount of harm to the busy detector reputation will be incurred, and potentially many less people will be angered that might otherwise retaliate and intentionally block. +++ WinMOR servers have been operational for months; not a single report of a WinMOR busy frequency detector failure has appeared here. Contrast that with ROS. There is no incentive NOT to keep the Winmor busy detector active - yet. +++ Are you saying that there has been no intentional QRM of WinMOR servers? If so, does the WinMOR community agree with you? So, there is no need to demonstrate to the broader community that it is already "safe". PROVE that it is safe first, with a wider use (in the subbands), and if it is, then turn it loose into the wild. Just characterizing it as such on a limited beta test program with a few beta testers does not prove what will happen with wider usage. Keeping it in the unattended subbands can serve just as well as having Winmor mailboxes everywhere immediately, and if it turns out it truly is a good neighbor, then the use can be wider. I think Andy also feels it is too soon to operate his Winmor mailbox outside the unattended subbands. +++ As I've already said, individual operators should apply their good judgement; if they aren't yet confident in the busy frequency detector's effectiveness, then running their server within the "automatic subbands" is entirely appropriate. But when experience leads such operators to become confident, they should be free to venture out onto other frequencies to which they are by regulation entitled to use. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Busy detect screenshot for Winmor
>>>AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of KH6TY Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 2:07 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Busy detect screenshot for Winmor Dave, I realize you have championed the idea of a busy detector for a long time, but unless it cannot be switched off, it will eventually be switched off, and those mailboxes will be spread over the bands, since they are allowed to go anywhere RTTY can. >>>I would be happy to see servers incorporate busy frequency detectors that cannot be disabled. However, adoption by server operators will require the elimination of intentional QRM. What is wrong with keeping narrow bandwidth servers with busy detectors operating at the high end of Winlink Pactor-III channels, since Pactor-III seldom reaches the highest speed level for very long and decreases bandwidth to suit the lower speeds? >>>There are two reasons to encourage servers with effective busy frequency detectors to utilize available frequencies: 1. it provides an incentive for server operators to incorporate busy frequency detectors 2. it demonstrates to the broader community that servers with busy frequency detectors are as polite as human operators, which should reduce the rate of intentional QRM >>>If a server operator is not yet confident in the effectiveness of the busy frequency detector included in his or her server, then using frequencies within the "automatic sub-bands" is good way to monitor the busy frequency detector's effectiveness and either gain the confidence that the detector works well enough to operate outside those sub-bands, or not. Your assumption is that Winmor servers and clients will always keep busy detect activated, but it has been shown that mailbox operators grow impatient to retrieve email, and if a channel is busy too often, will transmit anyway in an attempt to override the traffic already on the channel, even among servers of like kind. >>>As I've said, it would be best if busy frequency detectors were permanently enabled -- but there will likely need to be progress on all sides before this happens. Just getting an effective busy frequency detector into every WinLink PMBO would be a huge positive step. Why not try the busy detector/busy operators in a place designed for other automatic stations and see how well the whole system works. That is my suggestion. >>>Its my impression that the WinMOR busy frequency detector has been well-characterized as effective (going back to its original deployment in SCAMP), so its not clear to me why more evaluation is required. >>>The longer we keep digging our hole deeper, the longer it will take to escape. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Busy detect screenshot for Winmor
I disagree. Being able to operate outside the "automatic sub-bands" is an incentive for operators to preferentially choose servers that include an effective automatic busy frequency detector and to keep that busy frequency detector enabled. We're in a deep hole dug by those who ran (and continue to run) servers (e.g. WinLink PMBOs) without busy frequency detectors. This has generated enormous frustration over the years, to the point where some operators now intentionally QRM such servers. This intentional QRM is as disgusting as running a server without a busy frequency detector, and provides a convenient excuse for server operators to continue avoiding or disabling busy frequency detectors. The first step in escaping from a deep hole is to stop digging. In our case, this means that 1. servers with effective busy frequency detectors enabled should be welcome across the full range of frequencies available to them as specified in the applicable regulations 2. the intentional QRM must stop 3. servers without busy frequency detectors (e.g. WinLink PMBOs) should immediately be retrofitted with effective busy frequency detectors -- a possibility that Rick KN6KB stated here a few months ago that he would investigate 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of KH6TY Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 9:25 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Busy detect screenshot for Winmor Thanks, Andy. Unless it is not impossible to disable busy detect, to answer your previous question about where to operate with Winmor, I personally think that Winmor frequencies should ALL be kept within the automatic subbands, since the tendency is going to be to disable it due to the uncertainty if there is malicious blocking or not. This way, busy detect can still be useful in enabling frequency sharing with other Winmor stations, and if someone disables busy detect, the effect on the rest of the hams will not be significant. This brings to mind the edict by Winlink that busy detect must not be enabled because of others trying to harm Winlink. It is highly unlikely that any malicious blocking will be done in the automatic subbands, because there is no reason to do so. The only blocking will be if the frequency is already in use by another mailbox. The recently reported problem with a PSKmail server still interfering with JT65 points up to another reason that ALL mailbox stations need to be in the same area, regardless of bandwidth. The more narrow the bandwidth, the easier it is to find a clear frequency there, so there is still an advantage to using a more narrow bandwidth. The frustration of being blocked too often if operating in the general use areas is, sooner or later, going to result in operator deactivation of the busy detection, especially as more and more Winmor mailboxes are set up. Before things get to that point, I think that it would be wise for early adopters, such as yourself, to set a good example by operating Winmor only in the automatic subbands and using the busy detection feature to more efficiently share frequencies there. 73, Skip KH6TY On 6/27/2010 8:46 AM, Andy obrien wrote: Skip (and anyone else interested), see the attached screenshot showing the Winmor server busy detect Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] 60M, FCC, and ALE
Andy, Just two-cents worth here. ALE400 forces the user into one software package and operating system at the expense of others. Of course, there is virtualization technologies to help with that, but unless ALE400 gets more widely adopted it likely isn't the answer as a specified signal of interest in any amateur band. Of course, I like where you are going with thatI'd much rather see multiple channels of narrow-band ALE in the bandwidth of one normal ALE signal. Another proposal might be to limit the ALE (and Pactor III that was proposed) to only one of the 60m channels, while allowing voice on all the others. I think PSK31 was also proposed, but I suspect that it was included simply to throw people off of the trail of ARRL's 60m EMCOMM grab. The problem with trying to setup 60m as an EMCOMM band (supporting ALE, Pactor III and the like) is that on 60m, we are second class citizens. The same characteristics that make 60m attractive to hams during an emergency make it attractive to the government as well. As long as we have to operate on a not-to-interfere basis, 60m will never be a viable EMCOMM band. FEMA, DHS, MARS, and others will grab all of the spectrum and there will be no room left for amateurs during a true regional or nationwide emergency. We already see that with the request to move one of the 60m frequencies due to continuing interference from a permanent station on the freq. I'm sure all of our other frequencies have government-authorized users that WILL show up during an emergency, effectively removing one or more channels on a regional or even nationwide basic. Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net "Real radio bounces off of the sky" On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Andy obrien wrote: > > > I see the brief mention in the latest QST about 60M and new band > proposal for USA stations. The article suggests that the FCC is > encouraging consideration of ALE for that band. That part slipped my > attention when we discussed this topic last month. I'm an ALE fan , > but not ALE as unsuccessfully advocated by HFLINK (although they have > had more success with their ideas, than I have had with mine!). I > wonder if the request for comments is an opportunity to promote the > concepts of ALE 400 for 60M? Seems to me that 60M would be an ideal > band for any ALE but especially for ALE 400. > > Andy K3UK > > --
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Individual software programs for various digital modes????
>>>AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of g4ilo Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 11:47 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Individual software programs for various digital modes The disadvantage of using different programs instead of standardizing on one is that you lose the benefits of computer logging. I guess the OP maintains a paper log so he isn't concerned with that aspect. >>>You can make digital mode QSOs with DM780, FLDigi, MixW, MMSSTV, MMTTY, MMVARI, MultiPSK or WinWarbler while logging QSOs to DXKeeper, using either Commander or HRD for transceiver control. >>>See <http://www.dxlabsuite.com/download.htm#Bridges, Gateways, and Extenders> 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Bad sound card?
Could it be that the card is set up for 5.1 surround instead of simple 2-channel stereo, or that you actually have the audio out connected to the wrong output - like the rear speakers on 5.1 surround? Most sound cards I've used come with a console that lets you set the card for various protocols, like 5.1 and so on. Hope it's something simple like that! Good luck es 73 Dave KB3MOW -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Jeremy Cowgar Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 3:25 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Bad sound card? Hello, When purchasing a new radio this last week I decided to also set my computer up how it should have been long ago. I purchased a sound card to dedicate it to digital modes. The sound card purchased was: http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0239854 It was $9.99... I wasn't asking for the world, but I didn't think I would get this. I am curious as to what you think? Here's the synario. I connect the line out to my rig blaster and when I transmit I get this: http://jeremy.cowgar.com/files/bad_sound_card.wav This was recorded from my mom's station that is 8 miles away. Obvious problem. I then simply moved the line out cable from my new sound card to my old sound card that is built into my mother board. No other changes. I do not have a recording of it, but it's beautiful, exactly how a feldhell signal should sound. Now, the most obvious thing would be is my sound settings wrong, i.e. way overdriving with the new sound card or something. I set them up the same. Looking at my ALC meter, I transmit into a dummy load, turn the line out volume up until I get ALC movement, then turn it back down until I cannot notice any ALC movement. Do you have any ideas? It's just $10, but I'd really like to have a dedicated sound card for the ham stuff, and please do not suggest a Signalink as I already have a nice setup, all wired and working, I just need to get this squared away. Until then, I'm working off my sound card built into the motherboard. Thanks for any help, Jeremy KB8LFA
Re: [digitalradio] What is here Spread Spectrum and why and what is not?
More importantly (to me, at least) is Spread Spectrum the most effective or efficient way of using a given amount of bandwidth to deliver a given data rate, from a weak signal point of view? IOW, would ROS work better than, let's say, MT-63, WINMOR, or Olivia if those three modes were adjusted to use the same bandwidth and data rate as ROS? If it were open source, I would have included Pactor-3 in that list, too. If not, then using SS is counter-productive as well as legally problematic. (I'm not implying that ROS is SS, BTW.) -- Dave Sparks AF6AS -- From: "Trevor ." Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 2:29 PM To: Subject: Re: [digitalradio] What is here Spread Spectrum and why and what is not? > --- On Wed, 2/6/10, KH6TY wrote: >> The FCC engineers have performed the same spectral analysis and >> informed the ARRL that the mode is truly spread spectrum. > > That's interesting, the FCC have said they they did not give judgments on > individual data modes, it's up to the operator to decide. > > Who were the FCC engineers you mention, where is their report and who in > ARRL HQ did they communicate with. > > 73 Trevor M5AKA > > > > > > > > > > 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] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
I have been experimenting with APRS-PSK63 lately. I'll probably get back to JT65 one of these days. I may even run ROS in beacon receive-only mode on occasion. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS -- From: Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 1:34 PM To: Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP > Hello Dave, > > Don't sse ypou much anymore on HF WSJT ,changes in antenna? > > OK and thanks. > > I contacted the people in VA and they replied right away. telling me > that they had stopped the mode. as a result of this case and I believe > a ruling / statement by ARRL ( probably only , no official FCC staements) > Very hard to check what is true and false. The stop is TRUE though > MT63 or 61 is in use with MARS But MT63 is no SS I believe > (not published stepping patterns etc ) > > 73 Rein W6SZ
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Found the section. It is 97.309(a)(4) of the code: http://www.arrl.org/technical-characteristics The reverse-engineering part is an inference on my part. -- Dave Sparks AF6AS -- From: Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 1:01 PM To: Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP > Hello Dave, AF6AS, > > "IIRC" what does it stand for? > > There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by > the FCC (and the NSA). > > Is that documented somewhere, not that I want to question the statement or > you. > > What about something like: "Those need to be able to read/decode it under > all circumstances " > > 73 Rein W6SZ
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
IIRC = "if I remember correctly". The documentation issue stemmed from someone who complained that PACTOR, and maybe other digital modes, could be considered "codes or cyphers", and the FCC ruled that they weren't because they were publicly documented. The source code has not been released by SCS, however. A public spec would resolve the issue of whether ROS is SS or not. I can't locate a reference to this issue, but if no one else remembers it, I will do a more intensive search on the subject I'm still wondering how CHIP-64 seems to be allowed on HF by the FCC. It is admittedly Spread Spectrum. -- Dave - AF6AS -- From: Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 1:01 PM To: Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP > Hello Dave, AF6AS, > > "IIRC" what does it stand for? > > There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by > the FCC (and the NSA). > > Is that documented somewhere, not that I want to question the statement or > you. > > What about something like: "Those need to be able to read/decode it under > all circumstances " > > 73 Rein W6SZ > > > -Original Message- >>From: Dave Sparks >>Sent: Jun 2, 2010 2:14 PM >>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP >> >>Oops, I missed that. >> >>What I *THOUGHT* you were saying is that you tried making a call (to a >>station with the current release) and succeeded. You might only be able >>to communicate with stations within a narrow range of release numbers near >>to the one you possess. >> >>I do think that demands for source code might be unnecessary, but IIRC a >>complete specification of the protocol is necessary. That's why PACTOR is >>legal. There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a >>mode by the FCC (and the NSA). >> >>-- >>Dave - AF6AS >> - Original Message - >> From: "John Becker, WØJAB" >> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 10:58 AM >> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP >> >> >> >> >> I think that is what I said below now in RED >> By my call I mean W0JAB >> >> >> At 12:44 PM 6/2/2010, you wrote: >> >> >>- Original Message - >>> But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop >> and >>> gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> I think even Ray Charles could see that. >>> >>> >>> Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to >>> jump in here and make any needed corrections. >> >>I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the >> current >>version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the >>program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that >> terminates the >>program and not any other random call? >> >>-- >>Dave >>AF6AS >> >> >> >> > > > > > > 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: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Without intending to reopen the argument about spread spectrum, the FCC has spoken about the legality of the mode. A few US hams will argue that it isn't spread spectrum since it isn't any wider than a SSB channel. Spread spectrum has no bandwidth definition, it is a transmission technique plain and simple. The developer admitted that it is spread spectrum then changed it only when it was pointed out that spread spectrum is illegal in the US for amateurs below 220MHz. Any US hams that do decide to use the mode are risking their license. As someone pointed out somewhere, it won't be the requirement of the FCC to prove that it is Spread Spectrum when they issue the fine; it will be on the US ham to prove it isn't. That's an expensive battle that no one should want to take on...especially since the author originally defined it as such. The FCC has spoken (correctly or incorrectly) about this, so the issue should be closed here in the US. What concerns me even more is the anti-ham attitude of the developer. However, he was pretty smart in that he did manage to find a willing cadre of beta-testers for a system that ultimately has an unspecified objective. He is not a ham, so why target hams except that we're experimenters by nature, so he has built-in beta testers. Between that, his shoddy and amateurish attempts at coding and security, and the "uncontrolled" email access that the program provides (give up access to my gmail account, no way!), one should be careful in allowing this software to reside on their computer. All of this is a shame as it is an interesting, albeit very wide, weak-signal mode. Dave Real radio bounces off the sky _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rein A Sent: Wednesday, 02 June, 2010 18:39 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hello Dave, K3DCW, and all others, What an eyeopener, that QRZ forum! http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742. Have been there in the beginning of this venture, but after having been shouted down on the other Yahoo group by some individuals and their uninformed follower's, I was under the impression that as far as the US ham population went this had become a "dead" issue, little interest, and the "lets move on" motto in place. Far from that, it appears. I like to use this method and in spite of its author, figurehow more or less useful it is in Weak Signal. Like to refer to a serious article in the VHF/UHF/EME/microwave magazine DUBUS. Reporting on some serious testing and comparisons with the EME designed WSJT method(s) by K1JT. Tests were done and reported by VK7MO, a well known weak signal person. In my opinion this is drifting into an area that is not good for amateur radio. The author refuses to listen, understand, address amateur radio licensing, domestic and international oversight and regulation, frequency coordination, and I can go on and on. Keeps referring to me as the "ARRL's messenger" as I tried so many times, to explain the difference between a radio amateur organization and an US Federal Regulatory Agency with world wide connection to the same in other countries. It is for instance, a big puzzle how an author of a software protocol can assign frequencies without checking with other users. Anyway, glad to see that I not just a single trouble maker as I am probably classified in certain circles. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> , "Dave" wrote: > > Rein, > > There are several (around a dozen I think) amateur operators that are > "prohibited" from using ROS by having their call signs hard-coded into a > persona-non-grata listing in ROS. I am proud to be one of those ops. This > has been extensively documented on QRZ in the following thread: > <http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742> > http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742. > > I didn't think that John was one of them, but it has been awhile since the > list was looked at last. > > Dave > K3DCW > > > _ > > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> ] On > Behalf Of Rein A > Sent: Wednesday, 02 June, 2010 17:12 > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP > > > > > Hello John, > > If your situation is not due to an installation problem > or other, but is part of the distributed software, planned, > programmed in, it might well have other consequences. > > ROS modem is under consideration to be incorporated in other > a
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Oops, I missed that. What I *THOUGHT* you were saying is that you tried making a call (to a station with the current release) and succeeded. You might only be able to communicate with stations within a narrow range of release numbers near to the one you possess. I do think that demands for source code might be unnecessary, but IIRC a complete specification of the protocol is necessary. That's why PACTOR is legal. There has to be enough information to at least reverse-engineer a mode by the FCC (and the NSA). -- Dave - AF6AS - Original Message - From: "John Becker, WØJAB" To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP I think that is what I said below now in RED By my call I mean W0JAB At 12:44 PM 6/2/2010, you wrote: - Original Message - > But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and > gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. > > What do you think? > > I think even Ray Charles could see that. > > > Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to > jump in here and make any needed corrections. I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the program and not any other random call? -- Dave AF6AS
Re: [digitalradio] ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
- Original Message - > But since I have it on a flash drive I did install it on the laptop and > gave it a call other then my call and it worked fine. > > What do you think? > > I think even Ray Charles could see that. > > > Jose, if I'm wrong in any way - feel free to > jump in here and make any needed corrections. I'd be surprised if your version were still compatible with the current version. Did you try making up a call and trying to put that in the program, just to make sure that it is your specific call that terminates the program and not any other random call? -- Dave AF6AS
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Exactly, Skip. Well put. Dave Real radio bounces off the sky _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of KH6TY Sent: Wednesday, 02 June, 2010 17:38 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP I agree with Rein's concern. Given the actions of the author in the past, and the fact that he is not even part of the amateur radio community, I'd be very hesitant to use that mode in a program, not know knowing what other malicious code might be embedded in the ROS software. Except for the 16 baud, 2000 Hz wide mode, which may be good for EME, I don't see from the QSL card postings on the ROS website that ROS is any better than Olivia or Contestia, and those modes do not take up a disproportionate amount of spectrum space. I'd say incorporate ROS at your own risk, programmers! 73 - Skip KH6TY Rein A wrote: Hello John, If your situation is not due to an installation problem or other, but is part of the distributed software, planned, programmed in, it might well have other consequences. ROS modem is under consideration to be incorporated in other amateur radio digital packages. Think about that angle. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@ <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <mailto:w0...@...> wrote: > > Rein > > Really don't know what to say at this point. > Still trying to understand why my call was added to > the list of calls "not able" to use the ROS program. > > But since Jose will not say I'll just move on to things > other then ROS. But I'm not the only one that this > has happen to. No big deal I have gotten over it long ago. > > Now I'm just guessing but I think he may have misunderstood > something I may have said in a post. Really not sure for the reason > but since he is not talking about it I guess anyone of us that have > been banned from using the program will never know. > > It all started when he posted a update to his program and then I > found out that I could no longer us it. Like others. > > But I still have one of the first versions on a memory stick > that I could use on the other computer if needed. > > Seems he is the *only* one that's knows and at this time is > not saying. So be it - I got over it long ago. > > John, W0JAB >
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP
Rein, There are several (around a dozen I think) amateur operators that are "prohibited" from using ROS by having their call signs hard-coded into a persona-non-grata listing in ROS. I am proud to be one of those ops. This has been extensively documented on QRZ in the following thread: <http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742> http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=239742. I didn't think that John was one of them, but it has been awhile since the list was looked at last. Dave K3DCW _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rein A Sent: Wednesday, 02 June, 2010 17:12 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP Hello John, If your situation is not due to an installation problem or other, but is part of the distributed software, planned, programmed in, it might well have other consequences. ROS modem is under consideration to be incorporated in other amateur radio digital packages. Think about that angle. 73 Rein W6SZ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> , "John Becker, WØJAB" wrote: > > Rein > > Really don't know what to say at this point. > Still trying to understand why my call was added to > the list of calls "not able" to use the ROS program. > > But since Jose will not say I'll just move on to things > other then ROS. But I'm not the only one that this > has happen to. No big deal I have gotten over it long ago. > > Now I'm just guessing but I think he may have misunderstood > something I may have said in a post. Really not sure for the reason > but since he is not talking about it I guess anyone of us that have > been banned from using the program will never know. > > It all started when he posted a update to his program and then I > found out that I could no longer us it. Like others. > > But I still have one of the first versions on a memory stick > that I could use on the other computer if needed. > > Seems he is the *only* one that's knows and at this time is > not saying. So be it - I got over it long ago. > > John, W0JAB >
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ALE400 and CCW w/LotW and eQSL?
Have you downloaded the configuration update for TQSL that supports a wide variety of extra modes. I'm not sure that ALE400 is included, but I know CONTESTIA is Log into your account on the LoTW website, go to "Your Account", then "Your Certificates"...click on the "Download current TQSL Configuration file" to you computer. Then, open TQSL Cert and import that new certificate. It adds support for a LOT of data modes. Dave K3DCW On May 31, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Paul wrote: > Hi Jeremy: > > I asked LOTW help the exact question the other day and this is their response: > > "Open TQSL > Select FILE - PREFERENCES - ADIF MODES > Click the ADD button on right. > In the mode window enter the mode as it is expressed in your logging > program. > Use the drop down menu to select the mode that you want it to represent. > [DATA] > Click OK - Click OK > Now you can sign the log and upload the TQ8 file." > > However, when I looked at the answer, I began to have my doubts that it would > work. Contestia, ROS, Thor, to name three, aren't recognized by LOTW as > modes. Thor isn't recognised as an accepted ADIF mode. If we linked Contestia > to a DATA mode, by doing the above we'd be credited with a DATA contact but > only if both stations made this change. That's not going to happen in the > real world unless you know the individuals and you both make the same change. > Or am I missing something? > > There is problems right now because modes are being created faster than ADIF > is adding them, or the logging programs are updating them. LOTW doesn't > recognise a lot of modes that have been out for some time. In my case I don't > really care if I get an award credit for the QSO, all I want is a QSL > confirmation. Even E-QSL has a wider range of accepted modes. So not sure > what to do or say. Anyway I am not an expert on logging, ADIF or LOTW. So > maybe I am missing something in the above method. I am a digital operator and > it's frustrating when either the logging program or LOTW won't accept a mode > that you're using. (ROS won't be accepted by Logger32 for instance.) And it > happens every day here. So I have to try and manually make notes of the real > modes I used and at some point write out QSL cards by hand because that's the > only way for some modes. > > I log ALE400 and ALE141a as Ale contacts right now. I also log CCW as CW with > a note in my log. Ale I think is accepted by LOTW. (I think.)I am not sure > about CCW but I don't think it's a "valid" ADIF mode. > > Anyway I am kind of shooting blind here so anyone that has solutions to these > issues would be greatly appreciated. > > Paul > VE9NC > > BTW Jeremy... tnx for the ccw-fsk and Ale400 modes. > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jeremy Cowgar wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I just made my first ALE400 and CCW QSO today but when I went to sync > > with both LotW and eQSL I received errors about unknown modes. I logged > > them as ALE400 and CCW. > > > > Any thoughts on how to properly log and report these QSOs? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jeremy > > KB8LFA > > > > Dave Real radio bounces off the sky --
[digitalradio] RE: [SDRlist] Digital ID Skimmer mock-up
http://www.dxlabsuite.com/winwarbler/Heard.jpg
Entries can be sorted by clicking a column header (like a spreadsheet).
- Add a column to indicate mode.
- Provide filtering by mode (e.g. "only show Olivia and Contestia entries")
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-Original Message-
From: sdrl...@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sdrl...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of
Andy obrien
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 6:37 AM
To: digitalradio; sdrl...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [SDRlist] Digital ID Skimmer mock-up
See http://www.obriensweb.com/digidskimmer.htm for a crude mock-up
of how a digital mode "skimmer" could look , The concept would be ...
digital mode applications that already use RS ID detect (Fldigi,
Multipsk, DM780, Pocketdigi) expand their current displays of received
RS IDs in to something that provides more interactive information that
is "clickable" so you can QSY to the particular frequency, sortable by
mode of frequency, and color coded for easier visual reference. Call
ID (a very useful feature within Multipsk) could also be part of this
and , when used, the call sign of the station that ID's would be
displayed. This concept would support wider range frequencies
provided by an SDR, just as CW Skimmer does.
Anyone have any improvements on this idea ?
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Opposing 60M proposal
>>>AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of David Little Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:35 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Opposing 60M proposal You further reinforce my position; the amateur radio service is not going to support long haul emcomm infrastructure. It doesn't matter what color you paint it. If the amout of wasted envy spent on lamenting P3 was devoted to promoting the Amateur Radio Service; then it may have a chance of surviving a few more decades. The others who take a serious look at your stance, and the credibility the ARS stands to lose have a good idea about who is destroying the villiage. Of course I have heard the same complaints about WINMOR; I live on planet Earth. >>>I have not seen a single complaint about WinMor on this reflector, or anywhere else on the internet. If you have, please post a couple of URLs. By the same token, if we had to resort to smoke signals, the same group would be protesting unattended operation of fire. To me, the discussion is a passing amusement. I don't anticipate the need to generally waste time or effort trying to use Amateur Radio Service spectrum for any useful long haul communications in an emergency; except voice when I may need a larger audience in an affected area. The SATERN nets in the first week of the Haiti response brought out the jammers. They had the same hatred for sustained net operations as the anti P3 crowd have for effective emcomm infrastructure. The end result is the same; ineffective interference... Long Haul Emcomm has migrated to NTIA spectrum. I am reaping a great crop of effective communications there. How well did your crop come in?? >>>Quite well, thanks: some new ones on 160m and 80m, 3500+ QSOs in 2 weeks as 8P9RY, some great digital-mode rag chews, a post here from Rick KN6KB saying that he'd consider backfitting the WinMor busy frequency detector into WinLink PMBOs, and lots of fun adding SDR Console support to DXLab. 73, Dave, AA6YQ .
Re: [digitalradio] Opposing 60M proposal
I take that as a "no" to my question about whether Pactor III has ever been publicly documented. My understanding is that if it is not, then it isn't authorized for use on the amateur bands in the US. I'm not opposed to Pactor III, per se, but by my understanding it doesn't comply with the basic rules. If this is the case, then either the rules need to change, or the modes that don't comply need to be removed from the air. Thoughts? Dave On May 10, 2010, at 9:18 PM, Andy obrien wrote: > FYI, I plan to file a comment opposing the PIII on 60M proposal. My > objections are > > PIII is a proprietary mode . > PIII as used in non-busy detect Winkink system has been the leading cause of > QRM complaints for the past 10 years, hence they are likely to cause the same > for the primary services that have 60M allocations. > Recent tests of NBEMS with FLICS and WRAP have proven as effective as PIII > and take up less spectrum (and are not proprietary) > Winmor 500 offers most of the Winlink capabilities without the problems > associated with wide PIII and is freely available to all hams. > > I will probably suggest that they authorize PS31, MFSK16 and Winmor 500 if > they are going to get mode specific. > > Andy K3UK > > > > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Dave Wright wrote: > > > On May 10, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Chris Jewell wrote: > >> >> Rick Ellison writes: >> "recommending that instead of authorizing only PSK-31 and Pactor-III, >> that the FCC instead permit all publicly-documented data modes " >> > > > So, has Pactor III every been publicly-documented??? > > > > Dave > K3DCW > > Real radio bounces off the sky > -- > > Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky --
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
On May 10, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Chris Jewell wrote: > Rick Ellison writes: > "recommending that instead of authorizing only PSK-31 and Pactor-III, > that the FCC instead permit all publicly-documented data modes " > > So, has Pactor III every been publicly-documented??? Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky --
RE: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
>>>AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of "John Becker, WOJAB" Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 12:50 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support... I can clearly see that this anti Pactor rant will Never end. >>>It's an "anti-Winlink without busy frequency detection" rant, John. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
>>>AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Rick Muething Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 7:11 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Vic Poor' Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection" Dave, Using the WINMOR busy detector for Pactor sounds like a workable idea. The WINMOR busy detector hasn't yet been integrated into other WL2K Pactor Servers but it could be. The basic WINMOR TNC application (the virtual TNC) has the function but would need to be integrated into the Pactor driver for the SCS. When Vic gets back from vacation I'll talk to him about this and when we might be able to do that. >>>Rick and Vick, that would be a huge positive step. If there is any way I can help with this, please let me know. 73, Dave, AA6YQ .
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
Thanks, Rick.
I have suggested in the past that your SCAMP/WINMOR "channel busy detector"
could be inexpensively back-fit into WinLink PMBOs. Has anyone taken a look
at this?
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of Rick Muething
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 8:30 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
All,
I have been busy with WINMOR but do monitor the group and thought it might
add some balance to put forth some facts and observations.
1) The majority of WL2K users are not 30 day wonder hams on expensive
yachts. Marine mobile users are probably < 20% of all registered WL2K users
(about 15,000 total current active users).
2) Those that are Marine Mobile have (on average) the same radio
skills as the average ham.some much better. Getting digital radio to work at
all on a small sailboat (most MM users are not wealthy and have "yachts" of
< 35 feet) when you are sitting in a plastic boat inside the antenna near
field is a challenge. I have seen and helped set up over 100 such
installations.
3) Certainly there are a number of operators that fail to "listen
first" or don't use the tools and procedures recommended to connect. E.g.
AirMail limits the calling cycle to normally < 20 seconds for most stations.
Unfortunately bad operators and procedures exist in ham radio in every mode.
4) Marinas by and large don't do or sell radio installations (I have
NEVER seen even one). They sell GAS/Diesel, dockage, supplies, beer and
bait. In fact most marine radio service companies have minimal experience
with ham radios or HF digital modes.
5) Scanning has been used in the past to improve the utilization of HF
Pactor server stations but can be an issue. Pactor has some but limited
busy channel detection capability. WL2K is now looking at and testing
alternatives to the conventional scanning used in Pactor. The new WINMOR
protocol allows more options and experimentation.
a. RMS WINMOR server stations [Beta operation started in January 2010]
operate on ONE frequency which can be changed (on the hour) during the day
(most use 1 - 3 frequencies over a 24 hour day). The frequency list clients
use indicate which frequency is in use on which UTC hour. The client
software (RMS Express) shows users ONLY those frequencies in current use
along with the propagation prediction to the remote server stations. Users
can refresh their server station list over the air or over the internet if
available.
b. WINMOR uses an effective "channel busy detector" to warn users if a
channel appears busy in the bandwidth of interest. The detector isn't
perfect (neither is the human ear!) but it can detect most modes even in
weak conditions (SSB, CW, PSK, Pactor, Olivia, WINMOR etc).
c. The RMS WINMOR stations (servers) also have a similar DSP based
detector which can block a reply to a connect request. This will prevent for
example answering a connect request "over" an existing session/QSO not
audible to the station originating the connect request (hidden transmitter
situation). We're still experimenting and refining this but it definitely
helps avoid accidental interference.
To summarize: Painting all Winlink users with a broad brush of "wealthy
yachties with limited radio skills" is no where near the truth and is an
obvious attempt distort the facts to promote some agenda. If given the
flexibility to work on and experiment with these digital modes it is
possible to address issues and make progress improving our hobby. If we try
and legislate every detail we end up generating rules or band plans that
become obsolete quickly. This discourages experimentation (I still hope
that is part of our hobby.) and progress.
I don't have the time to get into flame wars or extended blogging ..If you
have a legitimate technical question on WINMOR or a question about WL2K I
will try and answer it with accurate facts.
73,
Rick Muething, KN6KB
RE: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
>>>AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: Jaak Hohensee [mailto:jaak.hohen...@eesti.ee] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:50 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Cc: Dave AA6YQ Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection" Busy detection in case of QRP Olivia 500/32 signals about snr -17dB is myth. >>>One could include an Olivia decoder in one's busy frequency detector. A busy detector need not detect all possible digital modes simultaneously; it could continuously reconfigure. >>>And as I said, "perfect is the enemy of good" (with apologies to Voltaire). A busy detector that is "only" 80% effective would reduce QRM rates from unattended stations by a factor of 5. 73, Dave, AA6YQ 8.04.2010 19:41, Dave AA6YQ kirjutas: If there were no means for such stations to avoid transmitting atop detectable on-going QSOs, I might consider supporting such a proposal. Busy frequency detection, however, is demonstrably feasible and practical. Rewarding the long-term rude behavior of ops running unattended semi-automatic and automatic stations without busy detection by giving them dedicated sub-bands would send a very clear message: the way to obtain dedicated frequencies is to unrelentingly drive everyone else out of them. Appeasement never works. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Andy obrien Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:50 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection" Let me "drill down" on this some more to find out the prevailing view... Would those that object to Bonnie's idea, also object if the "wide" modes were not part of the issue?. How about these objections if there was a digital mode under 500 Hz that transmitted "unattended" under automatic control? It seems to me, that after years of complaints that PACTOR, ALE, and CW (W1AW) just fire up in the middle of a on-going QSO, that having an area designated for automatic unattended operations makes sense. Then, if we operate there, we do so knowing that W1AW or a WINMOR server may activate at any moment? (actually W1AW has a schedule , but you get my drift). A 500 Hz sliver of spectrum in 80, 60 (yes) 30, 17, and 10M would be all that is needed. The current ALE, Winmor, Pactor, operators (there really are only about 200 in the world , TOTAL ) would then use narrow forms of their mode to achieve their aims . coordinate schedules between them, and have 2500 Hz where their operations are primary, and other hams communications in these segments would be secondary. Andy K3UK On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM, n9dsj wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien wrote: > > Andy K3UK Personalities aside, the proposed "bandplan" is a bad idea. I cannot think of a present or future mode that could be better served by this. ROS has its own problems and standard ALE and PactorIII presently have areas they can reside. Neither are new or "advancing the state of art". Even Winmor, which is relatively recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is why they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic sub-bands. I have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on pre-determined frequencies and actually have little traffic (no offense intended). The prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots being able to operate on the suggested frequencies is problematic and antithetical to the need for frequency conservation. Bill N9DSJ > -- Kirjutas ja tervitab Jaak Hohensee
RE: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
Rick KN6KB developed an effective busy frequency detector that he included
with his implementation of the SCAMP protocol several years ago. A
high-level description of SCAMP is available via
<http://www.eham.net/articles/9785>
RIck was initially reluctant to develop a busy-frequency detector because he
couldn't make it perfect. My contribution was to help him understand that in
this domain, perfect is the enemy of good; the resulting effectiveness of
his busy frequency detector surprised Rick, as well as the SCAMP beta
testers.
My understanding is that WINMOR, which Rick characterizes as a descendent of
SCAMP, incorporates a descendent of SCAMP's busy frequency detector. I have
not seen a technical paper describing Rick's busy frequency detector, much
less code that you could borrow, but based on my experience I suspect that
Rick would be happy to discuss it with you.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of Simon HB9DRV
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:30 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
I've seen (but not yet read) references to this in the SDR world.
Out of interest what would you have in mind?
Simon Brown, HB9DRV
http://sdr-radio.com
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ
Busy frequency detection, however, is demonstrably feasible and practical.
RE: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
If there were no means for such stations to avoid transmitting atop detectable on-going QSOs, I might consider supporting such a proposal. Busy frequency detection, however, is demonstrably feasible and practical. Rewarding the long-term rude behavior of ops running unattended semi-automatic and automatic stations without busy detection by giving them dedicated sub-bands would send a very clear message: the way to obtain dedicated frequencies is to unrelentingly drive everyone else out of them. Appeasement never works. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Andy obrien Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:50 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection" Let me "drill down" on this some more to find out the prevailing view... Would those that object to Bonnie's idea, also object if the "wide" modes were not part of the issue?. How about these objections if there was a digital mode under 500 Hz that transmitted "unattended" under automatic control? It seems to me, that after years of complaints that PACTOR, ALE, and CW (W1AW) just fire up in the middle of a on-going QSO, that having an area designated for automatic unattended operations makes sense. Then, if we operate there, we do so knowing that W1AW or a WINMOR server may activate at any moment? (actually W1AW has a schedule , but you get my drift). A 500 Hz sliver of spectrum in 80, 60 (yes) 30, 17, and 10M would be all that is needed. The current ALE, Winmor, Pactor, operators (there really are only about 200 in the world , TOTAL ) would then use narrow forms of their mode to achieve their aims . coordinate schedules between them, and have 2500 Hz where their operations are primary, and other hams communications in these segments would be secondary. Andy K3UK On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM, n9dsj wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien wrote: > > Andy K3UK Personalities aside, the proposed "bandplan" is a bad idea. I cannot think of a present or future mode that could be better served by this. ROS has its own problems and standard ALE and PactorIII presently have areas they can reside. Neither are new or "advancing the state of art". Even Winmor, which is relatively recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is why they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic sub-bands. I have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on pre-determined frequencies and actually have little traffic (no offense intended). The prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots being able to operate on the suggested frequencies is problematic and antithetical to the need for frequency conservation. Bill N9DSJ >
Re: [digitalradio] KQ6XA Recommendation IARU Region 2 Bandplan to ARRL
The ARRL deadline for comments/suggestions was April 5th. I wonder why Bonnie waited until the very last minute to submit her suggestion to the ARRL? Could it be that she anticipated a backlash against the 15%+ proposal (her suggested band plan gives 50% of 30m to fast/automatic stations!) from other amateurs that do not share her passion for EMCOMM? By waiting until the very last minute, she effectively prevents anyone from commenting directly for or against her proposal. Kudos to Bonnie for her political awareness and for knowing how to work the system. Now, regardless of the deadline, I'm going to be sure to send in my two-cents worth. Dave K3DCW On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 6:48 AM, Andy obrien wrote: > > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: expeditionradio > Date: Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 1:02 AM > Subject: [WINMOR] KQ6XA Recommendation IARU Region 2 Bandplan to ARRL > To: win...@yahoogroups.com > > > > > If WINMOR/WINLINK operators would like to contact > the ARRL Bandplan Committee and ARRL officials > in support of the KQ6XA Recommendation, attached > below, you may do so by sending an email to > bandplan2...@arrl.org > bandplan2010@ arrl.org > > and to your appropriate ARRL Section officers. > > You may reference this website containing the > recommendation with charts and images: > http://hflink.com/bandplans/iaru_region_2.html > > Voicing your support is needed (the sooner, the better) > for us to build a future for advanced HF > ham radio communications. > > 73 Bonnie Crystal KQ6XA > > TO: ARRL BOARD OF DIRECTORS' BAND PLANNING COMMITEE > REPRESENTING USA FOR IARU REGION 2 BANDPLAN COMMITTEE > ARRL, NEWINGTON, CT, USA > > FROM: BONNIE CRYSTAL KQ6XA, > International Coordinator, Global ALE High Frequency Network (HFN) > > DATE: 05 APRIL 2010 > > SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGE TO IARU REGION 2 BANDPLAN > > Dear Band Planning Committee Members, > > In response to "ARRL Seeks Input for New IARU Region 2 Band Plan" > http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11374/?nc=1 > > Here is an offering of essential recommendations with a > carefully researched band segmentation chart, to help > enable ARRL to represent hams effectively in the process > of committee deliberations, for the upcoming > IARU Region 2 Bandplan this year. > > INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND > I write to you, as a very active operator in USA's Amateur > Radio Service, and in my capacity as International Coordinator > for the Global ALE High Frequency Network, a 24-7-365 interconnected > network of hams operating simultaneously on all international > HF bands for the past 3 years. I have presented papers and > participated in expert panels at Global Amateur Radio > Emergency Communications (GAREC) and other HF Conferences, > on the subject of international emergency / disaster > communications and HF Automatically Controlled Data Station > innovations. I have worked with groups and nets of digital > and analog modes to achieve voluntary HF net coordination. > I maintain a survey of HF band activity and a > comprehensive up-to-date international ham radio > bandplanning resource at http://hflink.com/bandplans > > MOTIVATION AND HOPE FOR A NEW HF BANDPLAN > The motivation for this correspondence is the hope that > the ARRL Representative to IARU Region 2 bandplanning > committee can work aggressively toward a better bandplan > this year, especially one that is both compatible > with USA's FCC Amateur Radio Service rules, and > designates adequate spectrum space for automatic > fast data stations. The previous plan had many > many errors, mostly due to essentially being copied > from an old IARU Region 1 bandplan, without regard > to appropriateness for Region 2 hams. > > THE EMCOMM BACKBONE: HF AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLED DATA STATIONS > HF Automatically Controlled Data Stations have become > a vital lifeline for many stations in remote areas > of our IARU Region. The networks of ham operators > that use and keep these fast data stations on the > air daily have become the main backbone of > emergency/disaster HF communications in the North > American and Caribbean area within recent years. A huge > community of hams is being served daily by HF data networks, > especially with email and short text messaging, resulting > in thousands of contacts per day logged on a steady basis. > Recent developments in "soundcard ARQ digimodes" has brought > fast HF data within the budget of almost every ham in the > Americas. During emergencies or disasters, this fast data > traffic increases exponentially in the extremely crowded > automatic bandplan segments. > > REGION 2 LEADS WORLD IN HF FAST D
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
> Immediately, take me off of your mailing list Weird language for a constitutional amendment.
RE: [digitalradio] SS definitions
>>>8P9RY comments below From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Trevor . Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 3:21 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SS definitions --- On Wed, 10/3/10, KH6TY mailto:kh6ty%40comcast.net> > wrote: > Alan, though we may disagree as to the amount or nature of FHSS in ROS, > the bottom line is that the FCC engineers, as well as the ARRL engineers, > reviewed both the documentation and the signal footprint, and have > concluded it is FHSS. Who are these "FCC Engineers" ? All we've has is a response from someone that may be assumed to be an office clerk who simply quoted back the words in Part 97. >>>What a convenient assumption. Have you spoken with the agent in question, >>>assessed her technical skills, and inquired as to what effort went into the >>>response she conveyed? 73, Dave, 8P9RY
RE: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Yes, lots of modern transceivers have a dedicated data mode, but they're generally too wide for optimal RTTY reception. In contrast, consider the Twin Peak filter available on recent Icom transceivers, for example; it's only available with the transceiver's mode set to RTTY. 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of g4ilo Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 6:59 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 I've heard this argument many times, Dave, but whilst it was probably true 10 or more years ago, surely all decent modern transceivers have a dedicated data mode that allows the use of narrow filters? Heck, even the humble FT-817 has one. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> , "Dave AA6YQ" wrote: > > The advantage of using FSK is that one can take advantage of the excellent > RTTY filters built into some transceivers. These filters are generally not > available when operating in USB/LSB. This is particularly important to > contesters operating in a crowded environment and DXers dealing with weak > signals.
RE: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
The advantage of using FSK is that one can take advantage of the excellent RTTY filters built into some transceivers. These filters are generally not available when operating in USB/LSB. This is particularly important to contesters operating in a crowded environment and DXers dealing with weak signals. 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of g4ilo Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:54 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 It also doesn't suffer from the ridiculous printing up garbage because a shift character was lost. If there ever was an outdated mode, it's RTTY. Unfortunately logic or technical arguments play very little part in the reason why people choose to use particular modes. Many RTTY operators insist on actually FSK-ing their radios instead of using AFSK, even though it means they have to accurately tune in every signal instead of just clicking on a waterfall, which would surely be quicker. Julian, G4ILO --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> , KH6TY wrote: > > The hope was that PSK63 could replace RTTY, being both spectrally more > efficient, and more usable for a panoramic presentation for contesters > to see who is on the band, but it never came about. Too bad, I think, > because it would help reduce congestion during contests. PSK63's overall > time to complete an exchange is roughly equal to RTTY (twice as fast as > PSK31), which is considered too slow for "RTTY" contesting, but I don't > understand why it has not been adopted. I even wrote an article on PSK63 > for the National Contest Journal, but there appeared to be little > interest and few comments. > > 73 - Skip KH6TY >
RE: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
EPC runs a PSK63 contest, and the mode works quite well. Panoramic reception and broadband decoding are a potent combination. It's the only contest I've ever entered, and I took first place in NA, hi. 73, Dave, AA6YQ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of KH6TY Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:40 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 The hope was that PSK63 could replace RTTY, being both spectrally more efficient, and more usable for a panoramic presentation for contesters to see who is on the band, but it never came about. Too bad, I think, because it would help reduce congestion during contests. PSK63's overall time to complete an exchange is roughly equal to RTTY (twice as fast as PSK31), which is considered too slow for "RTTY" contesting, but I don't understand why it has not been adopted. I even wrote an article on PSK63 for the National Contest Journal, but there appeared to be little interest and few comments. 73 - Skip KH6TY g4ilo wrote: I don't think digital voice will ever replace SSB, any more than PSK31 and other spectrally more efficient modes will replace RTTY. Radios have a long lifetime. But unlike digital modes whose bandwidth is fixed, phone can communicate using reduced bandwidth. Look what happens in a contest. Julian, G4ILO
RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
It’s more easily decoded than two handclaps in front of the microphone… 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Warren Moxley Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 2:25 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 "something simple like “QRL” in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.)" At least this is an idea. Let's here more brain storming, even ones that sound silly at first might or can be modified to a solution or cause someone else to think in an entirely new way. --- On Mon, 3/8/10, Dave AA6YQ wrote: From: Dave AA6YQ Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 9:58 AM (unless the “Universal QRL signal” is something simple like “QRL” in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.) 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:55 AM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver – e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the “universal QRL” signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi o...@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Warren Moxley Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, "since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference." This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is "no way" a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY wrote: From: KH6TY Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely "regulation by bandwidth" is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL "regulation by bandwidth" petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but u
RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
(unless the “Universal QRL signal” is something simple like “QRL” in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.) 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:55 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver – e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the “universal QRL” signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Warren Moxley Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, "since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference." This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is "no way" a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY wrote: From: KH6TY Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely "regulation by bandwidth" is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL "regulation by bandwidth" petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to restricted by bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be a "common language" for frequency use mitigation. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June 1976) says "Rather than further complicate the present rules," the Commission said, "with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioner
RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating without a computer connected to his transceiver – e.g. a phone operator -- will be unable to generate the “universal QRL” signal. 73, Dave, 8P9RY From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Warren Moxley Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 Skip, "since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference." This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35 years and have heard there is "no way" a lot of times only to come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team. It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use. Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve. Warren - K5WGM --- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY wrote: From: KH6TY Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM Trevor, The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required to know CW. I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the problem with solely "regulation by bandwidth" is NOT a solution, especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL "regulation by bandwidth" petition to the FCC was withdrawn after already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone. Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to restricted by bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be a "common language" for frequency use mitigation. 73 - Skip KH6TY Trevor . wrote: Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page June 1976) says "Rather than further complicate the present rules," the Commission said, "with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners' requests, we are herein proposing to delete all references to specific emission types in Part 97 of the Rules. "We propose, instead," the Commission continued, "to replace the present provisions with limitations on the permissible bandwidth which an amateur signal may occupy in the various amateur frequency bands. Within the authorised limitations any emission wo
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS
>>>AA6YQ comments below From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 5:50 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS Hi Dave, ( AA6YQ ) Thanks. I might just do that next Monday. I understand it to be, some help/emergency phone line? >>>It’s not an emergency phone line. I Lost the number, so if you have it, please send it to me. >>>call (877) 480-3201, choose option #2, and when a person answers ask for >>>“Dawn” (agent 3820). I am also very much interested in your definition of ss. I have not been able to find anything, Wikipedia really does not count in this case. >>>I don’t have a definition, Rein; I agree with you that the Wikipedia entry >>>is not authoritative. The fact that part 97 references spread spectrum >>>without defining it is one of the root causes of this controversy, leaving >>>us to make “individual decisions” in the absence of decision criteria. >>>Transparency (ability for anyone to copy without a private key) and >>>spreading factor are clearly important factors, but to what does the >>>spreading factor apply? Information content? Bandwidth of the signal being >>>spread? Mike N4QLB claims in a post on the ROS reflector that “it’s not >>>spread spectrum if the resulting bandwidth is 3 khz”. Is that true? If so, >>>why 3 khz, as opposed to, say, 3.1 khz? >>>While the assessment of a digital mode’s legality in the US is left to the >>>operator, the decision to impose a penalty in an operator for using an >>>illegal mode lies with the FCC. Given the FCC’s declaration that “ROS is >>>viewed as spread spectrum” and the ARRL’s similar public announcement, I >>>would be hard-pressed to explain why my use of ROS should not result in a >>>serious fine or loss of license. Thus I am not using ROS on HF bands. >>>Said another way, US amateurs can decide to use ROS, but they’d best have a >>>killer technical argument for its legality at the ready. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] What is SS?
Mike N4QLB's claims that "A frequency in Ham radio consist of a 3kh wide
channel. Ros does not signal a receiver to hop outside of that channel (3
Khz) therefore it is not SS and is just like anyother FSK mode used in the
amatuer radio service." are incorrect, in my opinion.
Amateur radio frequencies on HF bands are not channelized at 3 khz or any
other bandwidth (with the exception of 60m).
I have asked Mike to cite justification for his claim on the ROS reflector
that spreading a ~50 hz signal across 3 khz using classic spread spectrum
techniques (e.g. a pseudo-random sequence) isn't spread spectrum.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Rein A
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 3:16 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] What is SS?
Hello All,
I have been trying to understand from the very beginning of this
circus what the real problem was and where I could read about it,
from 3d independant sources.
Jose the programmer has done a poor job in pinning down the core
of the problem.
Here is a reprint that for my limited mental capacities defines
the core quite well.
I have asked Mike the author for some references, no lack of trust
though.
In my searches on the internet I had seen pieces directing to Mike's
arguments but never connected the dots.
After checking with Mike N4QLB, he has been able to hear me on
ROS with a couple of hundred mW, he allowed me to post it here.
-
> -Original Message-
> >From: n4qlb
> >Sent: Mar 5, 2010 1:15 PM
> >To: rosdigitalmodemgr...@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP%40yahoogroups.com>
> >Subject: [ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP] Re: How do you like ROS Now?
> >
> >Thank You for your comments Sig. Let me explain what SS is. Spread
spectrum is a method by which a bank of channels (Frequencies)are designated
between a Transmitter and Receiver and are shared or (Frequency Hopped) to
facilitate a clear Transmisson. The Transmitter actually signals the
Receiver to Hop from one frequency to another. A good example is a 900mhz
digital cordless telephone or a 800Mhz digital radio truncking system.
(Motorla Astro). A frequency in Ham radio consist of a 3kh wide channel. Ros
does not signal a receiver to hop outside of that channel (3 Khz) therefore
it is not SS and is just like anyother FSK mode used in the amatuer radio
service. The ease of obtaining a License in the U.S. by people that are not
technically qualified to hold one is the main culprit regarding the
controversy over new modes such as ROS. I am confident that all variations
of ROS are perfectly legal in the U.S.
> >
> >Mike
> >N4QLB
--
Hope this is a positive contribution to the ongoing discussions.
73 Rein W6SZ
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages)
>>>AA6YQ comments below From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of J. Moen Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 10:11 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS (K3UK Sked Pages) Dave, You make good points, and you've already hugely contributed and continue to contribute to Ham Radio, so I don't mean to question you. >>>The fact that I write free software for the amateur community doesn’t mean >>>my posts are beyond question. I make mistakes just like everyone else does, >>>and don’t mind being called on them. But if the FCC agent does not consider us Hams a bunch of squabbling children, I guess we are lucky. We sure look that way to me. I am deeply disappointed about this ROS affair. The major parties in the conflict did not conduct themselves well. As a citizen of the US, it is embarassing the FCC rules don't take bandwidth into account when defining what modes are legal on what bands, and they don't, as you point out, technically define spread spectrum. This probably does not look good to most of the rest of the ham radio world. But given the FCC's statement about each amateur radio operator being responsbile for determining what a mode is and where, therefore, it can be legally operated, I suspect the ham community in the US would have been better off letting each amateur make that determination. I don't think it was wise to immediately contact FCC and ask them, given the givens. This is usually true in every general situation like this, until all the facts can be gathered. At the same time, we have to admit that the author or ROS, similar to FCC's lack of clarity in their rules, has not technically defined ROS very well so far. I hope that changes. Overall, these past weeks have not been amateur radio's finest hours. >>>It has been a bit of a perfect storm: attractive new mode, described as >>>spread spectrum by its developer, US hams unable to use spread spectrum on >>>HF, but no clear definition of what constitutes spread spectrum. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS
Rein, why don’t you call Dawn (FCC agent 3820) and ask her why the FCC chose to communicate through the ARRL; the phone number has been posted in previous messages here, but I’ll dig it back up if needed. 73, Dave, AA6YQ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 12:18 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS Hi Trevor. In my opinion, your points are very well taken. It appears to me strange, at best, that an US federal branch is using an hobby club with a membership ratio of some 50 % of the total US population to communicate via thatclub matters of law. Even with the 50 % membership, the percentage of members following the day in and out operations is much lower. I can imagine perhaps one reason that this has not happened, a lack of resources at the Federal Communication Commission though that seems to be unlikely. The FCC has very effective ways to communicate with us, if need be, I am a member of the ARRL and have been that for 40 years. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- >From: "Trevor ." mailto:m5aka%40yahoo.co.uk> > >Sent: Mar 5, 2010 5:13 AM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL/FCC Announcement about ROS > >All the ARRL announcement really does is reference the FCC statement of Feb. >23. > >That statement said the FCC was not going to say if it considered ROS to be >spread spectrum. Individual operators were the ones responsible for making a >decision. > >The FCC has never said ROS is "illegal" nor have the ARRL. > >I've had a trawl through the FCC site but couldn't find a definition there of >what they mean by the words "Spread Spectrum" and it's their definition that >matters not other peoples. > >If the FCC were concerned about the use of ROS on HF you would have thought >they would have written to at least one of the US stations that they had >observed using it and informed them of a breach of regulations. I am not aware >that they have done so. > >73 Trevor M5AKA > > > > > > > > >Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page >http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html >Suggesting calling frequencies: Modes <500Hz 3583,7073,14073,18103, >21073,24923, 28123 . Wider modes e.g. Olivia 32/1000, ROS16, ALE: 14109.7088. >Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
RE: [digitalradio] FCC on "ROS" post on ARRL website!
>>>AA6YQ comments below. From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Ackrill Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 3:14 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC on "ROS" post on ARRL website! Dave AA6YQ wrote: However the source of this proof would have to come from someone other than the ROS developer, who now has no credibility with the FCC whatsoever. Is that what the FCC said, or is that just your opinion, Dave? >>>My opinion, Dave. My posts have been explicit when attributing comments or >>>positions to FCC personnel. Dave
Re: [digitalradio] FCC on "ROS" post on ARRL website!
Dave AA6YQ wrote: > However the source of this proof would have to come from someone other than > the ROS developer, who now has no credibility with the FCC whatsoever. Is that what the FCC said, or is that just your opinion, Dave? Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] Re: I second the motion
Mark T Egan wrote: > Let's continue the experiment in the true spirit of HAM radio. > So far no one has tabled an actual piece of legal document stating the > legality of the mode. So continue to use the mode until otherwise told. > Mark (VK2KLJ) I'm with you Mark, Unfortunately I think that Jose now has to suffer yet more from various directions. This is why I still point out that Jose is one person and the people who have taken against, in one form or another, are a multiple, so don't be surprised if the one seems to be raging against the many at times. Even if Jose seems to raging against "you" remember that 'you' are now just one amongst many against him. If the roles were reversed, how would 'you' feel against so many people who were, or seemed to be, against you? Dave (G0DJA)
RE: [digitalradio] FCC on "ROS" post on ARRL website!
The FCC said " 'ROS' is viewed as 'spread spectrum,' and the creator of the system describes it as that. We assume that he knows what he created." This is unequivocal. However, the FCC also says "The Commission does not determine if a particular mode 'truly' represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules. The licensee of the station transmitting the emission is responsible for determining that the operation of the station complies with the rules." Thus if someone were to convince the FCC that ROS is in fact not spread spectrum, then ROS could be used on HF by US operators. However the source of this proof would have to come from someone other than the ROS developer, who now has no credibility with the FCC whatsoever. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Rik van Riel Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 5:54 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] FCC on "ROS" post on ARRL website! On 03/04/2010 02:02 PM, Alan wrote: > http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11377/?nc=1 > So we can forget about here in the US...too bad it looked really nice...73, > Alan I don't read it like that. The FCC just says that: 1) spread spectrum is not allowed on HF, and 2) The Commission does not determine if a particular mode 'truly' represents spread spectrum, and 3) The licensee of the station transmitting the emission is responsible for determining that the operation of the station complies with the rules. Once Jose publishes a full specification for ROS (one that is complete enough to create an interoperable alternative implementation), US hams will be able to make the technical determination that the FCC requires us to make. Until then, there is no way to be sure whether or not ROS is legal to use in the US. We simply do not have enough info to make the determination. I expect that cautious US hams will avoid ROS until there is certainty that ROS is in fact legal. -- All rights reversed.
Re: [digitalradio] ROS update
KH6TY wrote: > Unfortunately, it appears that ROS is actually FHSS, as originally > described on the ROS website, and therefore is not legal for US hams > below 222MHz. :-( I think that I now no longer care about whether ROS is, or is not, legal in the USA. I see that I am now subject to moderation on here, so my freedom of speech on the subject seems to be curtailed. Strange that, don't you think for those of you that are from the land of free speech, that the moderators, who seem to live in the USA, now want to vet my posts to this group? My previous posts were to give details of the band plans in the UK by reference to the RSGB website. I'm not sure why, but they never were allowed to be posted. I wonder if this will be allowed? Dave (G0DJA)
Re: [digitalradio] ROS UHF "net" February 6 1230 UTC
I take it you mean MARCH 6th? -- Dave Sparks - AF6AS - Original Message - From: "obrienaj" To: Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:16 PM Subject: [digitalradio] ROS UHF "net" February 6 1230 UTC >I will be on 432.090 mHz this Saturday Feb 6 at 1230 UTC . listening and >testing ROS 1 and 16. If interested, check in to the K3Uk Sked page > > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/ > > > > > > > > Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page > http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html > Suggesting calling frequencies: Modes <500Hz 3583,7073,14073,18103, > 21073,24923, 28123 . Wider modes e.g. Olivia 32/1000, ROS16, ALE: > 14109.7088. > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
