[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[jhaynesatalumni]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "n9dsj"  wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
> 
> Actually CHIP worked ok, especially on the low bands. The Virginia NTS net 
> used this and still may.

Worked OK, but I didn't think it worked as well as or better than
other modes that were more popular.

Jim W6JVE

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

[w2xj]

Skip, please see my other post on this topic. It is not that ROS on HF

is illegal it is just not specifically listed in the rules as are older 
systems. There is a general catch all section that permits new modes 
provided they adhere to general guidelines concerning bandwidth and 
encryption. Steinar, while not specifically a part of FCC rules, spread 
spectrum by gentleman's agreement uses only a few known spreading 
algorithms so it is easy to cycle through them and decrypt the 
transmission. There are other ways to make the signal receivable and so 
long as the FCC can find a means to listen in, you are fine. Otherwise 
you can be ordered off the air.




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

[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[n9dsj]

Hi Jim,

Actually CHIP worked ok, especially on the low bands. The Virginia NTS net used 
this and still may. I think the issues with CHIP, and perhaps ROS, have more to 
do with a strict definition of "spread spectrum" and "frequency hopping" then 
the reality of the mode.

73,

Bill N9DSJ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "jhaynesatalumni"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY  wrote:
> >
> > I agree Dave, and Chip64 was abandoned over here on the same basis!
> > 
> I remember trying Chip64 without worrying about whether it was
> legal.  I got the impression it was abandoned just because it didn't
> work very well compared to some of the other modes that came out
> about the same time.
> 
> Jim W6JVE
>

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

[KH6TY]

Hi Steinar,

The FCC needs to address Winmor also, if we are to continue to keep our 
shared bands open. However, Winmor is new, and it takes time to move a 
government body, and complaints must also be filed by those harmed.

In the case of spread spectrum, as it pertains to ROS, spread spectrum 
has already been addressed, but the FCC needs to issue a new opinion, 
and I hope Andy's letter to the FCC Commissioner will help make that 
happen. The danger is that ROS has been described as spread spectrum and 
appears to use frequency hopping as described, so the FCC's initial 
reaction might be that spread spectrum of any kind (or width) is only 
permitted at 222 MHz or above (cell phones use the technology too) as 
stated in the current regulations. It may take a formal petition to the 
FCC to allow limited spread spectrum of the kind used by ROS to get an 
amendment to the rules instead of just a clarification which may go 
against us. We will have to see what happens.

Basically, IMHO. no "quasi-commercial" messaging "services" should be 
allowed on the ham bands, as these are true "amateur" activites. There 
is plenty of room for those on the Sailmail network without taking away 
from space needed for amateur hobby activities. With sunspots returning, 
this will soon become a much bigger problem as our bands get more 
crowded with more traditional amateur communications, and signals simply 
propagate farther.

73, Skip

> You wrote "One problem with traditional spread spectrum is that it is
> designed to be hard to monitor, which therefore means hard to police," 
> What about the lack of  capability to monitor the winmor mode ?
>
> 73 de LA5VNA Steinar
>   
>




Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page 
http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
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/

[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[obrienaj]

Please keep comments related to amateur radio.

Andy K3UK
Owner.

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Bob John"  wrote:
>
>  Illegal immigration is also not allowed,  but our government supports it. So 
> have fun with ROS. 
> Bob, AA8X
>

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

[Steinar Aanesland]

Hi Skip

Thanks for your answer . I do not disagree with you , but I do not think
you need an extremely hard regime to prevent anarchy.

You wrote "One problem with traditional spread spectrum is that it is
designed to be hard to monitor, which therefore means hard to police," 
What about the lack of  capability to monitor the winmor mode ?

73 de LA5VNA Steinar





On 21.02.2010 19:30, KH6TY wrote:
> I agree, Steinar. The principle we all must follow on amateur
> frequencies is that they are SHARED frequencies, which means used on a
> first-come-first server basis and anyone accidentally transmitting on
> an ongoing QSO must also be capable of moving when asked, as well as
> being able to check if the frequency is clear. Some will say that DX
> pileups or contesters also do not share, but at the moment of
> transmission, the frequency may appear to be clear. The interference
> is due to severe overcrowding, and not intentionally trying to
> dominate a frequency. This is much different from transmitting without
> any attempt to check at all. Winmor, Winlink, and ALE all violate that
> time-honored principle, and so did Propnet until they moved off the
> normal QSO frequencies.
>
> Our FCC has set aside a set of frequencies on several bands for
> stations that are automatically controlled to accomodate stations that
> do not listen first, so those stations have no justifiable excuse to
> complain about interference amongst themselves. They are lucky to have
> any  place at all to operate, and that space is far greater, in
> proportion to their representation in the total ham population wishing
> to use the bands, than would normally be allocated. Just because one
> group thinks THEIR traffic is more important than other traffic does
> not give them a right to dominate or claim exclusive or primary use of
> any frequency. This is a primarily HOBBY, and not a "service" to
> others, and it is only on that basis that we are permitted to keep the
> frequencies we have. In a true emergency, ALL frequencies are
> available to emergency operators and all others MUST give way, so even
> claiming to be essential for emergencies does not convey any right of
> ownership of any of our shared frequencies.
>
> To answer your question specifically, Winmor, if over 500 Hz wide, is
> only allowed to operate in those automatic subbands. They are also
> required to check that the frequency is clear before transmitting,
> even in the automatic subbands, but that is not enforced because it is
> basically unenforceable. You can see the result there - stations
> regularly trample each other because there no practical means of
> enforcing that they do not. Without rules, just imagine what the bands
> would be like if powerful or special interest stations that do not
> listen first were spread all over the bands. That almost happened a
> few years ago until the FCC refused to implement the ARRL regulation
> by bandwidth petition.
>
> Unless we insist on maintaining and supporting the shared nature of
> our bands, special interest groups that do not share will take over
> the bands and others will have no place in which to operate for QSO's,
> experimenting, contesting, DX chasing, etc., One problem with
> traditional spread spectrum is that it is designed to be hard to
> monitor, which therefore means hard to police, either by ourselves, or
> by government agencies. However, since ROS can be monitored by third
> parties, we hope that the FCC will amend the regulations to permit ROS
> to be used on HF, but until that is done, we in this country have no
> choice but to abide by the current regulations, even though they may
> seem to be unfair.
>
> Without any overall supervision, there will be anarchy, and with
> arnarchy, chaos will soon follow. Rules help to prevent arnarchy and
> chaos, and are not 100% effective, but are better than nothing.
>
> 73 - Skip KH6TY
>
>
>
>
> Steinar Aanesland wrote:
>> Hi Skip
>>
>> But why is a mode like WINMOR allowed in US? I know it is not SS , but
>> you can't monitor the traffic.
>> If I have not totally misunderstood,  that is one of the criteria for
>> using a digi mode on the band.
>>
>> Just a thought , but it seems that some part of the FCC rules are more
>> important to follow than others.
>>
>> 73 la5vna Steinar
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> On 21.02.2010 16:17, KH6TY wrote:
>>  
>>> Thank you, Steinar, but there have been serious attempts to dominate
>>> 
>> the HF bands with wideband modes for what is basically a private system
>> use, and the FCC acted to protect the bands from that abuse, so while it
>> is sad for us right now, what the FCC has done in the past has protected
>> all hams worldwide from such abuses, even if you do not realize it. I do
>> think ROS should be allowed, but until fully reviewed by the FCC, their
>> are correct in not allowing ROS to be used except on an experimental
>> basis. Believe me, there are much more dangerous fish in the sea!
>>  
>>> 73 - Skip KH6TY
>>

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

[Bob John]

 Illegal immigration is also not allowed,  but our government supports it. So 
have fun with ROS. 
Bob, AA8X


  - Original Message - 
  From: Dave 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 4:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?



  Jose (and all),



  My two-cents worth:  


  Olivia is MFSK (or AMFSK), ROS is Spread Spectrum.  MFSK is legal on HF, SS 
is not.  


  It isn't about bandwidth or any of the other arguments.  Since ROS is Spread 
Spectrum then it is not allowed on HF in areas regulated by the FCC under the 
current rules.  Skip is correct here and Andy is right to be concerned. 




  Dave
  K3DCW  
  
  Dave


  Real radio bounces off the sky









  On 19 Feb, at 4:47 PM, KH6TY wrote:


Jose,

We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision, but 
our FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are valid. 
Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out.


73 - Skip KH6TY



jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
   
  We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal.



  

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

[KH6TY]

I agree, Steinar. The principle we all must follow on amateur 
frequencies is that they are SHARED frequencies, which means used on a 
first-come-first server basis and anyone accidentally transmitting on an 
ongoing QSO must also be capable of moving when asked, as well as being 
able to check if the frequency is clear. Some will say that DX pileups 
or contesters also do not share, but at the moment of transmission, the 
frequency may appear to be clear. The interference is due to severe 
overcrowding, and not intentionally trying to dominate a frequency. This 
is much different from transmitting without any attempt to check at all. 
Winmor, Winlink, and ALE all violate that time-honored principle, and so 
did Propnet until they moved off the normal QSO frequencies.


Our FCC has set aside a set of frequencies on several bands for stations 
that are automatically controlled to accomodate stations that do not 
listen first, so those stations have no justifiable excuse to complain 
about interference amongst themselves. They are lucky to have any  place 
at all to operate, and that space is far greater, in proportion to their 
representation in the total ham population wishing to use the bands, 
than would normally be allocated. Just because one group thinks THEIR 
traffic is more important than other traffic does not give them a right 
to dominate or claim exclusive or primary use of any frequency. This is 
a primarily HOBBY, and not a "service" to others, and it is only on that 
basis that we are permitted to keep the frequencies we have. In a true 
emergency, ALL frequencies are available to emergency operators and all 
others MUST give way, so even claiming to be essential for emergencies 
does not convey any right of ownership of any of our shared frequencies.


To answer your question specifically, Winmor, if over 500 Hz wide, is 
only allowed to operate in those automatic subbands. They are also 
required to check that the frequency is clear before transmitting, even 
in the automatic subbands, but that is not enforced because it is 
basically unenforceable. You can see the result there - stations 
regularly trample each other because there no practical means of 
enforcing that they do not. Without rules, just imagine what the bands 
would be like if powerful or special interest stations that do not 
listen first were spread all over the bands. That almost happened a few 
years ago until the FCC refused to implement the ARRL regulation by 
bandwidth petition.


Unless we insist on maintaining and supporting the shared nature of our 
bands, special interest groups that do not share will take over the 
bands and others will have no place in which to operate for QSO's, 
experimenting, contesting, DX chasing, etc., One problem with 
traditional spread spectrum is that it is designed to be hard to 
monitor, which therefore means hard to police, either by ourselves, or 
by government agencies. However, since ROS can be monitored by third 
parties, we hope that the FCC will amend the regulations to permit ROS 
to be used on HF, but until that is done, we in this country have no 
choice but to abide by the current regulations, even though they may 
seem to be unfair.


Without any overall supervision, there will be anarchy, and with 
arnarchy, chaos will soon follow. Rules help to prevent arnarchy and 
chaos, and are not 100% effective, but are better than nothing.


73 - Skip KH6TY




Steinar Aanesland wrote:

Hi Skip

But why is a mode like WINMOR allowed in US? I know it is not SS , but
you can't monitor the traffic.
If I have not totally misunderstood,  that is one of the criteria for
using a digi mode on the band.

Just a thought , but it seems that some part of the FCC rules are more
important to follow than others.

73 la5vna Steinar


 



On 21.02.2010 16:17, KH6TY wrote:
  

Thank you, Steinar, but there have been serious attempts to dominate


the HF bands with wideband modes for what is basically a private system
use, and the FCC acted to protect the bands from that abuse, so while it
is sad for us right now, what the FCC has done in the past has protected
all hams worldwide from such abuses, even if you do not realize it. I do
think ROS should be allowed, but until fully reviewed by the FCC, their
are correct in not allowing ROS to be used except on an experimental
basis. Believe me, there are much more dangerous fish in the sea!
  

73 - Skip KH6TY




Steinar Aanesland wrote:


I feel really pity for you , my American HAM friends

73 de la5vna Steinar



On 21.02.2010 14:23, Dave Wright wrote:

  

I'm with you, Skip. While I appreciate the effort Jose put into this


mode, I
  

won't be using it on HF.

The article quoted as justification of the legality of ROS was


written by
  

the Italian developer of Chip64 who is not under the jurisdiction of the
FCC.  The ARRL lists it only as a technical reference to the mode. 


Since
  

the ARRL is NOT the re

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

[Steinar Aanesland]

Hi Skip

But why is a mode like WINMOR allowed in US? I know it is not SS , but
you can't monitor the traffic.
If I have not totally misunderstood,  that is one of the criteria for
using a digi mode on the band.

Just a thought , but it seems that some part of the FCC rules are more
important to follow than others.

73 la5vna Steinar


 


On 21.02.2010 16:17, KH6TY wrote:
> Thank you, Steinar, but there have been serious attempts to dominate
the HF bands with wideband modes for what is basically a private system
use, and the FCC acted to protect the bands from that abuse, so while it
is sad for us right now, what the FCC has done in the past has protected
all hams worldwide from such abuses, even if you do not realize it. I do
think ROS should be allowed, but until fully reviewed by the FCC, their
are correct in not allowing ROS to be used except on an experimental
basis. Believe me, there are much more dangerous fish in the sea!
>
> 73 - Skip KH6TY
>
>
>
>
> Steinar Aanesland wrote:
>> I feel really pity for you , my American HAM friends
>>
>> 73 de la5vna Steinar
>>
>>
>>
>> On 21.02.2010 14:23, Dave Wright wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm with you, Skip. While I appreciate the effort Jose put into this
mode, I
>>> won't be using it on HF.
>>>
>>> The article quoted as justification of the legality of ROS was
written by
>>> the Italian developer of Chip64 who is not under the jurisdiction of the
>>> FCC.  The ARRL lists it only as a technical reference to the mode. 
Since
>>> the ARRL is NOT the regulatory agency, it really only matters what
shows up
>>> in Part 97; and under Part 97, Chip64 is also illegal on HF in the US.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>> K3DCW
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:15 AM, KH6TY  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
 Thank you for your opinion, but need to be told to "calm down" as I
am not
 excited! The FCC rules are plain and the description of ROS by the
author is
 frequency hopping, whether within a phone signal bandwidth or not,
so that
 identifies it as spread spectrum. I am sure the FCC rules were
intended to
 prevent overly wide signals on HF using spread spectrum and
therefore they
 only permit spread spectrum above 222 Mhz, where there is plenty of
room.

 ROS is a really nice mode, but I will be using it only on 432 Mhz, in
 accordance with our FCC regulations. Others under FCC jurisdiction are
 welcome to use it at their own risk on HF.

 The current FCC rules are also probably intended to allow FCC
monitoring
 which is not possible with conventional spread spectrum, so I hope
the rules
 can be changed for spread spectrum modes like ROS which can be
copied by
 third parties, but until that happens, rules are rules, and we are
legally
 obligated to abide by them.

 73 - Skip KH6TY




 kp4cb wrote:

 Ok calm down, que no panda el cunico como decia el chapulin, this
mode is legal.

 Read this and you will know why is an article of the ARRL

 http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/Chip64.pdf



 Recent Activity:

- New
Members
14
- New
Files
3

  Visit Your
Group
Start
 a New
Topic
  Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page
 http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
  [image: Yahoo!
Groups]
 Switch to:
Text-Only,
 Daily
Digest•
 Unsubscribe
• Terms
 of Use 
.



  
>>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page
http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>






Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page 
http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
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 requir

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

[John Becker, WØJAB]

At 09:17 AM 2/21/2010, you wrote:


>Thank you, Steinar, but there have been serious attempts to dominate the HF 
>bands with wideband modes for what is basically a private system use.

Do you think Skip that she will ever get it done?

I was told not long ago that they (she) was about to ask the FCC to set aside
a small part of the band just for their mode. 

Of course I passed it off as " PURE B-S "  but would not put it passed her to 
try it.

John, W0JAB
Louisiana, Missouri

[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[jhaynesatalumni]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY  wrote:
>
> I agree Dave, and Chip64 was abandoned over here on the same basis!
> 
I remember trying Chip64 without worrying about whether it was
legal.  I got the impression it was abandoned just because it didn't
work very well compared to some of the other modes that came out
about the same time.

Jim W6JVE

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

[KH6TY]

Thank you, Steinar, but there have been serious attempts to dominate the 
HF bands with wideband modes for what is basically a private system use, 
and the FCC acted to protect the bands from that abuse, so while it is 
sad for us right now, what the FCC has done in the past has protected 
all hams worldwide from such abuses, even if you do not realize it. I do 
think ROS should be allowed, but until fully reviewed by the FCC, their 
are correct in not allowing ROS to be used except on an experimental 
basis. Believe me, there are much more dangerous fish in the sea!


73 - Skip KH6TY




Steinar Aanesland wrote:

I feel really pity for you , my American HAM friends

73 de la5vna Steinar



On 21.02.2010 14:23, Dave Wright wrote:
  

I'm with you, Skip. While I appreciate the effort Jose put into this mode, I
won't be using it on HF.

The article quoted as justification of the legality of ROS was written by
the Italian developer of Chip64 who is not under the jurisdiction of the
FCC.  The ARRL lists it only as a technical reference to the mode.  Since
the ARRL is NOT the regulatory agency, it really only matters what shows up
in Part 97; and under Part 97, Chip64 is also illegal on HF in the US.

Dave
K3DCW


On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:15 AM, KH6TY  wrote:

  


Thank you for your opinion, but need to be told to "calm down" as I am not
excited! The FCC rules are plain and the description of ROS by the author is
frequency hopping, whether within a phone signal bandwidth or not, so that
identifies it as spread spectrum. I am sure the FCC rules were intended to
prevent overly wide signals on HF using spread spectrum and therefore they
only permit spread spectrum above 222 Mhz, where there is plenty of room.

ROS is a really nice mode, but I will be using it only on 432 Mhz, in
accordance with our FCC regulations. Others under FCC jurisdiction are
welcome to use it at their own risk on HF.

The current FCC rules are also probably intended to allow FCC monitoring
which is not possible with conventional spread spectrum, so I hope the rules
can be changed for spread spectrum modes like ROS which can be copied by
third parties, but until that happens, rules are rules, and we are legally
obligated to abide by them.

73 - Skip KH6TY




kp4cb wrote:

Ok calm down, que no panda el cunico como decia el chapulin, this mode is legal.

Read this and you will know why is an article of the ARRL

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/Chip64.pdf



Recent Activity:

   - New 
Members
   14
   - New 
Files
   3

 Visit Your 
Group
 Start
a New 
Topic
 Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page
http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
 [image: Yahoo! 
Groups]
Switch to: 
Text-Only,
Daily 
Digest•
Unsubscribe • 
Terms
of Use 
   .




  
  








Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page 
http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html

Yahoo! Groups Links




  

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

[Steinar Aanesland]

I feel really pity for you , my American HAM friends

73 de la5vna Steinar



On 21.02.2010 14:23, Dave Wright wrote:
> I'm with you, Skip. While I appreciate the effort Jose put into this mode, I
> won't be using it on HF.
>
> The article quoted as justification of the legality of ROS was written by
> the Italian developer of Chip64 who is not under the jurisdiction of the
> FCC.  The ARRL lists it only as a technical reference to the mode.  Since
> the ARRL is NOT the regulatory agency, it really only matters what shows up
> in Part 97; and under Part 97, Chip64 is also illegal on HF in the US.
>
> Dave
> K3DCW
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:15 AM, KH6TY  wrote:
>
>   
>>
>> Thank you for your opinion, but need to be told to "calm down" as I am not
>> excited! The FCC rules are plain and the description of ROS by the author is
>> frequency hopping, whether within a phone signal bandwidth or not, so that
>> identifies it as spread spectrum. I am sure the FCC rules were intended to
>> prevent overly wide signals on HF using spread spectrum and therefore they
>> only permit spread spectrum above 222 Mhz, where there is plenty of room.
>>
>> ROS is a really nice mode, but I will be using it only on 432 Mhz, in
>> accordance with our FCC regulations. Others under FCC jurisdiction are
>> welcome to use it at their own risk on HF.
>>
>> The current FCC rules are also probably intended to allow FCC monitoring
>> which is not possible with conventional spread spectrum, so I hope the rules
>> can be changed for spread spectrum modes like ROS which can be copied by
>> third parties, but until that happens, rules are rules, and we are legally
>> obligated to abide by them.
>>
>> 73 - Skip KH6TY
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> kp4cb wrote:
>>
>> Ok calm down, que no panda el cunico como decia el chapulin, this mode is 
>> legal.
>>
>> Read this and you will know why is an article of the ARRL
>>
>> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/Chip64.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> Recent Activity:
>>
>>- New 
>> Members
>>14
>>- New 
>> Files
>>3
>>
>>  Visit Your 
>> Group
>>  Start
>> a New 
>> Topic
>>  Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page
>> http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
>>  [image: Yahoo! 
>> Groups]
>> Switch to: 
>> Text-Only,
>> Daily 
>> Digest•
>> Unsubscribe • 
>> Terms
>> of Use 
>>.
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>
>
>   






Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page 
http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
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] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[KH6TY]

I agree Dave, and Chip64 was abandoned over here on the same basis!

ROS looks like a fun mode, so I hope the FCC will allow it in the future.

73 - Skip KH6TY




Dave Wright wrote:
 

I'm with you, Skip. While I appreciate the effort Jose put into this 
mode, I won't be using it on HF.


The article quoted as justification of the legality of ROS was written 
by the Italian developer of Chip64 who is not under the jurisdiction 
of the FCC.  The ARRL lists it only as a technical reference to the 
mode.  Since the ARRL is NOT the regulatory agency, it really only 
matters what shows up in Part 97; and under Part 97, Chip64 is also 
illegal on HF in the US. 


Dave
K3DCW


On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:15 AM, KH6TY > wrote:


 


Thank you for your opinion, but need to be told to "calm down" as
I am not excited! The FCC rules are plain and the description of
ROS by the author is frequency hopping, whether within a phone
signal bandwidth or not, so that identifies it as spread spectrum.
I am sure the FCC rules were intended to prevent overly wide
signals on HF using spread spectrum and therefore they only permit
spread spectrum above 222 Mhz, where there is plenty of room.

ROS is a really nice mode, but I will be using it only on 432 Mhz,
in accordance with our FCC regulations. Others under FCC
jurisdiction are welcome to use it at their own risk on HF.

The current FCC rules are also probably intended to allow FCC
monitoring which is not possible with conventional spread
spectrum, so I hope the rules can be changed for spread spectrum
modes like ROS which can be copied by third parties, but until
that happens, rules are rules, and we are legally obligated to
abide by them.

73 - Skip KH6TY






kp4cb wrote:

Ok calm down, que no panda el cunico como decia el chapulin, this mode is 
legal.

Read this and you will know why is an article of the ARRL


http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/Chip64.pdf 



Recent Activity:

* New Members
  

  14
* New Files
  

  3

Visit Your Group


Start a New Topic



Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page
http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html

Yahoo! Groups



Switch to: Text-Only

,
Daily Digest

• Unsubscribe

• Terms of Use 
.




--
hfradio...@gmail.com 
"It isn't radio unless it bounces off the sky"

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

[Dave Wright]

I'm with you, Skip. While I appreciate the effort Jose put into this mode, I
won't be using it on HF.

The article quoted as justification of the legality of ROS was written by
the Italian developer of Chip64 who is not under the jurisdiction of the
FCC.  The ARRL lists it only as a technical reference to the mode.  Since
the ARRL is NOT the regulatory agency, it really only matters what shows up
in Part 97; and under Part 97, Chip64 is also illegal on HF in the US.

Dave
K3DCW


On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:15 AM, KH6TY  wrote:

>
>
> Thank you for your opinion, but need to be told to "calm down" as I am not
> excited! The FCC rules are plain and the description of ROS by the author is
> frequency hopping, whether within a phone signal bandwidth or not, so that
> identifies it as spread spectrum. I am sure the FCC rules were intended to
> prevent overly wide signals on HF using spread spectrum and therefore they
> only permit spread spectrum above 222 Mhz, where there is plenty of room.
>
> ROS is a really nice mode, but I will be using it only on 432 Mhz, in
> accordance with our FCC regulations. Others under FCC jurisdiction are
> welcome to use it at their own risk on HF.
>
> The current FCC rules are also probably intended to allow FCC monitoring
> which is not possible with conventional spread spectrum, so I hope the rules
> can be changed for spread spectrum modes like ROS which can be copied by
> third parties, but until that happens, rules are rules, and we are legally
> obligated to abide by them.
>
> 73 - Skip KH6TY
>
>
>
>
> kp4cb wrote:
>
> Ok calm down, que no panda el cunico como decia el chapulin, this mode is 
> legal.
>
> Read this and you will know why is an article of the ARRL
>
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/Chip64.pdf
>
>
>
> Recent Activity:
>
>- New 
> Members
>14
>- New 
> Files
>3
>
>  Visit Your 
> Group
>  Start
> a New 
> Topic
>  Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page
> http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
>  [image: Yahoo! 
> Groups]
> Switch to: 
> Text-Only,
> Daily 
> Digest•
> Unsubscribe • 
> Terms
> of Use 
>.
>
> 
>



-- 
hfradio...@gmail.com
"It isn't radio unless it bounces off the sky"

[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[KH6TY]

Thank you for your opinion, but need to be told to "calm down" as I am 
not excited! The FCC rules are plain and the description of ROS by the 
author is frequency hopping, whether within a phone signal bandwidth or 
not, so that identifies it as spread spectrum. I am sure the FCC rules 
were intended to prevent overly wide signals on HF using spread spectrum 
and therefore they only permit spread spectrum above 222 Mhz, where 
there is plenty of room.


ROS is a really nice mode, but I will be using it only on 432 Mhz, in 
accordance with our FCC regulations. Others under FCC jurisdiction are 
welcome to use it at their own risk on HF.


The current FCC rules are also probably intended to allow FCC monitoring 
which is not possible with conventional spread spectrum, so I hope the 
rules can be changed for spread spectrum modes like ROS which can be 
copied by third parties, but until that happens, rules are rules, and we 
are legally obligated to abide by them.


73 - Skip KH6TY




kp4cb wrote:

Ok calm down, que no panda el cunico como decia el chapulin, this mode is legal.

Read this and you will know why is an article of the ARRL


http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/Chip64.pdf




--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY  wrote:

  

All,

If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier 
suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed 
carrier frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping 
is frequency hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the carriers 
are generated. That is really too bad for US hams as all morning I have 
been receiving alerts and printouts from many stations on 14.080 - many 
times when the ROS signal can hardly be heard above the noise.


I'm afraid that Andy's concerns are real, and unless the FCC clarifies 
otherwise, ROS is currently illegal in the US in my personal opinion and 
interpretation of the FCC rules.


However, it looks like a worthwhile mode to test on UHF (432 MHz) where 
SS "is" allowed and we will be doing that during our daily digital 
experiments every morning on 432.090 SSB. The Doppler shift, multipath 
distortion, and "fast flutter", as well as QSB often as deep as 15 dB, 
often make even S3 phone signals unintelligible. We have been also been 
testing extensively with DominoEx 4 on FM (DominoEX does not survive 
Doppler shift well on SSB) and Olivia 16-500 and 4-500 on both FM and  
SSB, often with better copy than with  SSB phone, and especially so when 
signals are near the noise threshold. The path length is 200 miles, so 
signals are usually near the noise threshold during these winter months 
where there is no propagation enhancement.


I'll post the results of our tests on 432 MHz here during the next two 
weeks as we compare ROS to Olivia. So far, plain old CW can be copied 
when even Olivia cannot, but the CW "note" is very raspy sounding, much 
like it is during aroura communication. It would help a lot if it were 
possible to select alternate soundcards and many of us on UHF and VHF 
are using a second soundcard for digital operations.


73 - Skip KH6TY




nietorosdj wrote:

 



One comment: It is not the same a Spread Spectrum Transceiver (like 
military radios) that to send digital data into an audio channel on 
standard SSB transceiver. They are different things. So, when we read 
Spread Spectrum is not legal, first we must know what we are reading.


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
, Andy obrien  wrote:
  

>Joe,
  

N8FQ...

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html 



  
Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF. Is there another 


part of
  

part 97 I am missing ?

Andy K3UK


  




  

[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[obrienaj]

You make sense to me, Jim.  Good points.

Andy K3UK
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "J. Moen"  wrote:
>
> Sticking with the USA/FCC-centric discussion, I agree with Alan KM4BA, when 
> he wrote:
> 
> "If the radio stays on a single frequency in SSB mode the new mode does not 
> meet the definition of spread spectrum that is restricted in HF. Many 
> advanced digital protocols manage the spectrum in the SSB bandwidth to 
> achieve performance. But since the implied carrier frequency is not moving, 
> it's not spread spectrum in the classic sense."
> 
> It does not matter what the ROS authors write to describe it.  It isn't 
> illegal in the USA because they call it SS, all that matters is how a 
> competent engineer would technically describe it.  FCC rules do not say it is 
> illegal to use a mode that describes itself as SS on HF, they say that SS is 
> not allowed on the HF bands. And saying ROS is SS doesn't make that true.
> 
> I also agree with Andy G4JNT's point that Amateurs should be allowed to 
> experiment.  Historically in the USA, the FCC has indeed allowed 
> experimentation, then come along with appropriate rules once the new 
> technology is better understood.
> 
> I think all this legal discussion is trying to make, as they say, a mountain 
> out of a molehill.  
> 
>Jim - K6JM 
> 
> - Original Message - 
>   From: Alan Barrow 
>   To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 7:03 AM
>   Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
> 
>

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

[J. Moen]

Sticking with the USA/FCC-centric discussion, I agree with Alan KM4BA, when he 
wrote:

"If the radio stays on a single frequency in SSB mode the new mode does not 
meet the definition of spread spectrum that is restricted in HF. Many advanced 
digital protocols manage the spectrum in the SSB bandwidth to achieve 
performance. But since the implied carrier frequency is not moving, it's not 
spread spectrum in the classic sense."

It does not matter what the ROS authors write to describe it.  It isn't illegal 
in the USA because they call it SS, all that matters is how a competent 
engineer would technically describe it.  FCC rules do not say it is illegal to 
use a mode that describes itself as SS on HF, they say that SS is not allowed 
on the HF bands. And saying ROS is SS doesn't make that true.

I also agree with Andy G4JNT's point that Amateurs should be allowed to 
experiment.  Historically in the USA, the FCC has indeed allowed 
experimentation, then come along with appropriate rules once the new technology 
is better understood.

I think all this legal discussion is trying to make, as they say, a mountain 
out of a molehill.  

   Jim - K6JM 

- Original Message - 
  From: Alan Barrow 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 7:03 AM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

  Andy wrote:
  >
  > I find it rather amazing that 99% of the posts on ROS, and any
  > other new data mode, are related to its legality in the US. How
  > did you end up with such restrictive amateur licensing practices
  > that experimentation with any new ideas is almost regulated away?
  > Or worries the users that they make be flung in prison for
  > transmitting them :-)
  >

  Unfortunately the same way some of my brit friends found themselves in
  catch 22 regarding bio-fuels was not illegal. But was not taxed, so
  could not be used without paying tax. But there was no agency to pay tax
  to. IE: Bureaucracy! Big fines, court appearances, no law broken, yet
  all tangled up.

  I'll just say the US is not the only country with agencies restricting
  things based on red-tape rather than any legit reason.

  Even the FCC can be worked with if you go to the trouble to find the
  entry point, I've seen it done before more than once. But that's harder
  than having arm-chair lawyers make their declaration "It's illegal". :-)

  My read: If the radio stays on a single frequency in SSB mode the new
  mode does not meet the definition of spread spectrum that is restricted
  in HF. Many advanced digital protocols manage the spectrum in the SSB
  bandwidth to achieve performance. But since the implied carrier
  frequency is not moving, it's not spread spectrum in the classic sense.

  You might be able to argue if it's legal for use in certain band
  segments, etc. You could talk about effective symbol rate, though many
  modes are working around that as well.

  Have fun,

  Alan
  km4ba

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

[Alan Barrow]

Andy wrote:
>
>
>  
> I find it rather amazing that 99% of the posts on ROS, and any
> other new data mode, are related to its legality in the US. How
> did you end up with such restrictive amateur licensing practices
> that experimentation with any new ideas is almost regulated away?
> Or worries the users that they make be flung in prison for
> transmitting them :-)
>

Unfortunately the same way some of my brit friends found themselves in
catch 22 regarding bio-fuels was not illegal. But was not taxed, so
could not be used without paying tax. But there was no agency to pay tax
to. IE: Bureaucracy! Big fines, court appearances, no law broken, yet
all tangled up.

I'll just say the US is not the only country with agencies restricting
things based on red-tape rather than any legit reason.

Even the FCC can be worked with if you go to the trouble to find the
entry point, I've seen it done before more than once. But that's harder
than having arm-chair lawyers make their declaration "It's illegal". :-)

My read: If the radio stays on a single frequency in SSB mode the new
mode does not meet the definition of spread spectrum that is restricted
in HF. Many advanced digital protocols manage the spectrum in the SSB
bandwidth to achieve performance. But since the implied carrier
frequency is not moving, it's not spread spectrum in the classic sense.

You might be able to argue if it's legal for use in certain band
segments, etc. You could talk about effective symbol rate, though many
modes are working around that as well.

Have fun,

Alan
km4ba

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

[bruce mallon]

SO what you are saying is lets ctush the other modes so we can play with our 
new toy ?
We just went through this with wideband/spredsprectrum on 6 and 2 meters .
I dont care what mode anyone uses as long as it does not cause problems for 
others.
SHOW THE FCC IT WILL NOT CAUSE PROBLEMS  and go from there ...

--- On Sat, 2/20/10, IMR  wrote:


From: IMR 
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, February 20, 2010, 5:10 AM


  



I find it rather amazing that 99% of the posts on ROS, and any other new data 
mode, are related to its legality in the US. How did you end up with such 
restrictive amateur licensing practices that experimentation with any new ideas 
is almost regulated away? Or worries the users that they make be flung in 
prison for transmitting them :-)

I seem to recall exactly the same arguments about PSK31 when it started. Why 
not make representations to your licensing people to relax the rather ludicrous 
(to us, anyway) restrictions on signal bandwidths versus data rates and let 
amateurs look after their own bands. Legislate-out what is really bad, not 
legislate-in just what a committee thinks is reasonable on any given date.

Modern HF data modes have to be wide if they are to withstand the ionosphere. 
Something military communications discovered decades ago. The UK, and probably 
most European, licences don't dictate modes and bandplanning, they leave that 
to amateurs themselves to police. The licence just limits frequency bands, 
power etc. to avoid problems with other users. Bandplans are not mandatory as 
far as licencing goes - although people who break them do fall-foul of the 
operating police sometimes !

Andy
www.g4jnt.com

--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, KH6TY  wrote:
>
> Jose,
> 
> We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision, 
> but our FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are 
> valid. Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out.
> 
> 73 - Skip KH6TY
> 
> 









  

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

[KH6TY]

VISTA version working OK on Windows 7 Home Premium.

Starting testing on 70cm today.

73 - Skip KH6TY




jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
Yo only have to download the sound archive: "The Man Of the Vara at 1 
bauds (-35 dBs)" and tester.
 
The results speak for themselves



*De:* n9dsj 
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* sáb,20 febrero, 2010 03:53
*Asunto:* [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

 

Is ROS actually a spread spectrum frequency hopping mode or more like 
CHIP?


I have not seen any published modulation scheme/protocol specificaions 
so guessing.


I certainly doubt the -35dB claim without even anecdotal 
evidence...otherwis e for EME I now have a 10dB path margin :)


73,

Bill N9DSJ

--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
<mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, KH6TY  wrote:

>
> The answer is in Wikipedia for Spread Spectrum.
>
> 73 - Skip KH6TY

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

[James French]

I have to agree with Vince's explanation of the rules but I am thinking that 
we are over looking one rule here that I haven't seen brought up:

§97.309 RTTY and data emission codes:
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html#309
=
(a) Where authorized by §97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of this Part, an amateur 
station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using the following specified 
digital codes: 
(1) The 5-unit, start-stop, International Telegraph Alphabet No. 2, code 
defined in ITU-T Recommendation F.1, Division C (commonly known as "Baudot"). 
(2) The 7-unit code specified in ITU-R Recommendations M.476-5 and M.625-3 
(commonly known as "AMTOR"). 
(3) The 7-unit, International Alphabet No. 5, code defined in ITU-T 
Recommendation T.50 (commonly known as "ASCII"). 
(4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital 
code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical 
characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or 
PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications. 
(b) Where authorized by §§ 97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of this part, a station may 
transmit a RTTY or data emission using an unspecified digital code, except to a 
station in a country with which the United States does not have an agreement 
permitting the code to be used. RTTY and data emissions using unspecified 
digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning 
of any communication. When deemed necessary by a District Director to assure 
compliance with the FCC Rules, a station must: 
(1) Cease the transmission using the unspecified digital code; 
(2) Restrict transmissions of any digital code to the extent instructed; 
(3) Maintain a record, convertible to the original information, of all digital 
communications transmitted.
=

I 'think' that paragraph (b) pertains to any NEW digital modes that have come 
around since PSK31 was introduced. Everyone back then were concerned also 
about the 'legality' of these newer digital modes.
I would take Vince's advice about the rules along with what I have here and 
then make a decision on what is legal and not legal and operate within the 
'Spirit' of the rules as my Grandfather has told me but consider how what you 
are doing effects the other operator also.
James W8ISS

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

[Dave]

Taking it a bit personally, Jose?  No need to get snide about it. My comments 
were not an attack against you or your mode; which by the way, I think shows 
great merit. My only comment was the fact that the description of the mode as 
Spread Spectrum makes it illegal here in the USA on HF. If your signal uses a 
system similar to Olivia, then call it MFSK instead of Spread Spectrum, and 
pending any different argument from the FCC, it is suddenly legal.

As far as Olivia, the modulation method is MFSK. From the technical description 
on the ARRL site 
(http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/olivia.html)

The Olivia transmission system is constructed of two layers: the lower, 
modulation layer is an (almost) classical Multi-Frequency Shift Keying (MFSK) 
and the higher layer is a Forward Error-Correcting (FEC) code based on Walsh 
functions.

The modulation layer: MFSK

The default mode sends 32 tones within the 1000 Hz audio bandwidth and the 
tones are spaced by 1000 Hz/32 = 31.25 Hz. The tones are shaped to minimize the 
amount of energy sent outside the nominal bandwidth.

The tones are sent at 31.25 baud or every 32 milliseconds. The phase is not 
preserved from one tone to the next. Instead, a random shift of ±90 degrees is 
introduced in order not to transmit a pure tone, when same symbol is repeatedly 
sent. Because the symbols are smoothly shaped we do not need to keep the phase 
continues, which normally is the case when no (e.g. square) shaping were used.

The modulator uses the Gray code to encode 5-bit symbols into the tone numbers.

The waveform generator is based on the 8000 Hz sampling rate. The tones are 
spaced by 256 samples in time and the window that shapes them is 512 samples 
long. The demodulator is based on the FFT with the size of 512 points. The tone 
spacing in frequency is 8000 Hz/256 = 31.25 Hz and the demodulator FFT has the 
resolution of 8000 Hz/512 = 15.625 Hz thus half of the tone separation.

To adapt the system to different propagation conditions, the number of tones 
and the bandwidth can be changed and the time and frequency parameters are 
proportionally scaled. The number of tones can be 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 or 
256. The bandwidth can be 125, 250, 500, 1000 or 2000 Hz.


The error-correcting layer: FEC based on Walsh functions
The modulation layer of the Olivia transmission system sends at a time one out 
of 32 tones (the default mode). Each tone constitutes thus a symbol that 
carries 5 bits of information. For the FEC code, 64 symbols are taken to form a 
block. Within each block one bit out of every symbol is taken and it forms a 
64-bit vector coded as a Walsh function. Every 64-bit vector represents a 7-bit 
ASCII character, thus each block represents 5 ASCII characters.

This way, if one symbol (tone) becomes corrupted by the noise, only one bit of 
every 64-bit vector becomes corrupt, thus the transmission errors are spread 
uniformly across the characters within a block.

The two layers (MFSK+Walsh function) of the FEC code can be treated as a two 
dimensional code: the first dimension is formed along the frequency axis by the 
MFSK itself while the second dimension is formed along the time axis by the 
Walsh functions. The two dimensional arrangement was made with the idea in mind 
to solve such arranged FEC code with an iterative algorithm, however, no such 
algorithm was established to date.

The scrambling and simple bit interleaving is applied to make the generated 
symbol patterns appear more random and with minimal self-correlation: this 
avoids false locks at the receiver:

Bit interleaving: The Walsh function for the first character in a block is 
constructed from the 1st bit of the 1st symbol, the 2nd bit of the 2nd symbol, 
and so on. The 2nd Walsh function is constructed from the 2nd bit of the 1st 
symbol, the 3rd bit of the 2nd symbol, and so on.

Scrambling: The Walsh functions are scrambled with a pseudo-random sequence 
0xE257E6D0291574EC. The Walsh function for the 1st character in a block is 
scrambled with the scrambling sequence, the 2nd Walsh function is scrambled 
with the sequence rotated right by 13 bits, the 3rd with the sequence rotated 
by 26 bits, and so on.

Dave
K3DCW


Dave

Real radio bounces off the sky





On 19 Feb, at 5:45 PM, jose alberto nieto ros wrote:

> 
> ¿Olivia is only MFSK?  Why there is so ignorant people in the world?
>  
> 
> De: Dave 
> Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 23:03
> Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
> 
>  
> Jose (and all),
> 
> 
> My two-cents worth:  
> 
> Olivia is MFSK (or AMFSK), ROS is Spread Spectrum.  MFSK is legal on HF, SS 
> is not.  
> 
> It isn't about bandwidth or any of the other arguments.  Since ROS is Spread 
> Spectrum then it is not allowed on HF in areas regulated by the FCC under the 
> current rules.  Skip is c

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

[Andy obrien]

Andy, I think you are incorrect.  50% of the 89 messages , so far, are
related to the legality in the USA issue.  You are also preaching to the
choir, here.  Most of the member agree that the regulations in the USA
should  be as you suggest, and many representations have been made.

OK, now back to reading Skeleton helmet regulations for the Canadians..

Andy K3UK

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 5:10 AM, IMR  wrote:

>
>
> I find it rather amazing that 99% of the posts on ROS, and any other new
> data mode, are related to its legality in the US. How did you end up with
> such restrictive amateur licensing practices that experimentation with any
> new ideas is almost regulated away? Or worries the users that they make be
> flung in prison for transmitting them :-)
>
> I seem to recall exactly the same arguments about PSK31 when it started.
> Why not make representations to your licensing people to relax the rather
> ludicrous (to us, anyway) restrictions on signal bandwidths versus data
> rates and let amateurs look after their own bands. Legislate-out what is
> really bad, not legislate-in just what a committee thinks is reasonable on
> any given date.
>
> Modern HF data modes have to be wide if they are to withstand the
> ionosphere. Something military communications discovered decades ago. The
> UK, and probably most European, licences don't dictate modes and
> bandplanning, they leave that to amateurs themselves to police. The licence
> just limits frequency bands, power etc. to avoid problems with other users.
> Bandplans are not mandatory as far as licencing goes - although people who
> break them do fall-foul of the operating police sometimes !
>
> Andy
> www.g4jnt.com
>
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com ,
> KH6TY  wrote:
> >
> > Jose,
> >
> > We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision,
> > but our FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are
> > valid. Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find
> out.
> >
> > 73 - Skip KH6TY
> >
> >
>
>  
>

[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[IMR]

I find it rather amazing that 99% of the posts on ROS, and any other new data 
mode, are related to its legality in the US.   How did you end up with such 
restrictive amateur licensing practices that experimentation with any new ideas 
is almost regulated away?  Or worries the users that they make be flung in 
prison for transmitting them :-)

I seem to recall exactly the same arguments about PSK31 when it started.   Why 
not make representations to your licensing people to relax the rather ludicrous 
(to us, anyway) restrictions on signal bandwidths  versus data rates and let 
amateurs look after their own bands.   Legislate-out what is really bad, not 
legislate-in just what a committee thinks is reasonable on any given date.

Modern HF data modes have to be wide if they are to withstand the ionosphere.  
Something military communications discovered decades ago.   The UK, and 
probably most European, licences don't dictate modes and bandplanning, they 
leave that to amateurs themselves to police.  The licence just limits frequency 
bands, power etc. to avoid problems with other users.  Bandplans are not 
mandatory as far as licencing goes - although people who break them do 
fall-foul of the operating police sometimes !

Andy
www.g4jnt.com



--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY  wrote:
>
> Jose,
> 
> We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision, 
> but our FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are 
> valid. Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out.
> 
> 73 - Skip KH6TY
> 
> 

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

[jose alberto nieto ros]

Yo only have to download the sound archive: "The Man Of the Vara at 1 bauds 
(-35 dBs)" and tester.

The results speak for themselves




De: n9dsj 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: sáb,20 febrero, 2010 03:53
Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

  
Is ROS actually a spread spectrum frequency hopping mode or more like CHIP?

I have not seen any published modulation scheme/protocol specificaions so 
guessing.

I certainly doubt the -35dB claim without even anecdotal evidence...otherwis e 
for EME I now have a 10dB path margin :)

73,

Bill N9DSJ

--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, KH6TY  wrote:
>
> The answer is in Wikipedia for Spread Spectrum.
> 
> 73 - Skip KH6TY





  

[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[n9dsj]

Is ROS actually a spread spectrum frequency hopping mode or more like CHIP?

I have not seen any published modulation scheme/protocol specificaions so 
guessing.
 
I certainly doubt the -35dB claim without even anecdotal evidence...otherwise 
for EME I now have a 10dB path margin :)

73,

Bill N9DSJ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY  wrote:
>
> The answer is in Wikipedia for Spread Spectrum.
> 
> 73 - Skip KH6TY

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

[Alan Barrow]

Dave Ackrill wrote:
> but if we could get rid of many of the very loud European 
> stations, as well as the US ones, 


So the plan would be to get rid of the loud European & US stations, and
just leave the ( presumably not-loud?) UK ones on the air? :-)

Sounds workable to me, we could all dig out our Lucas wireless sets and
be not-loud together!

Sorry, just playing to our respective stereotypes, could not resist.

And for the record, I've been told more than once I do not qualify for
the "loud signal" club, downright wimpy in fact!

Have fun,

Alan
km4ba

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

[KH6TY]

The answer is in Wikipedia for Spread Spectrum.

73 - Skip KH6TY




Marco IK1ODO wrote:
 



>
>jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
>>Â
>>We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal.

The only difference I see, Olivia does not say to
be "spread spectrum", ROS does so :-) - but it's
exactly the same approach, as many other digital modes.
So, what is the exact "spread spectrum"
definition given by FCC? There should be one, somewhere.

73 - Marco IK1ODO

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

[DANNY DOUGLAS]

LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION  as they used to say.

There in Europe, you have dozens of "local" governments to satisify, in the way 
of modes and power, bands, etc.  Im always supprised to find two governments 
over there, who agree with anything another two may want to do on the bands.  
Over the years, that has somewhat worked its way out of the tangle.  Then, 
while we here have sub-bands, you usually do not, and that causes problems 
here, with modes being broadcast on top of other incompatable operation:, where 
we are limited to specific band-widths etc.  Even here, we have Canada, and the 
South Americans that we find working band/modes that we cannot reach, but 
little vice versa.  Our Canadian friends usually try to stay out of our cw 
bands, with their SSB signals,  but not all of them. Hopefully, we still 
are the land of the free - after all, we elect the leadership that puts the FCC 
commissioners in the job.  NO - that doesnt always work out too well either!

Danny Douglas
N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB
All 2 years or more (except Novice). Short stints at:  DA/PA/SU/HZ/7X/DU
CR9/7Y/KH7/5A/GW/GM/F
Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred,
I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do.  
Moderator
DXandTALK
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk
Digital_modes
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_modes/?yguid=341090159

  - Original Message - 
  From: Dave Ackrill 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 7:30 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?



  Dave wrote:
  > Jose (and all),
  > 
  > My two-cents worth: 
  > 
  > Olivia is MFSK (or AMFSK), ROS is Spread Spectrum. MFSK is legal on HF, SS 
is not. 
  > 
  > It isn't about bandwidth or any of the other arguments. Since ROS is Spread 
Spectrum then it is not allowed on HF in areas regulated by the FCC under the 
current rules. Skip is correct here and Andy is right to be concerned. 

  So, American Radio Amateurs are, now, more restricted than other Radio 
  Amateurs in the world?

  Forgive me. Ever since I was a CBer the USA seemed to have less 
  restrictive laws compared to here in the UK and now we've had more 
  allocated bands than in the US and less restrictive modes than in the US.

  The land of the free? LOL

  Sorry, I couldn't resist this after all the years of being told that I 
  was living under an oppressive government.

  Dave (G0DJA)


  

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

[Dave Ackrill]

Dave wrote:
> Jose (and all),
> 
> My two-cents worth:  
> 
> Olivia is MFSK (or AMFSK), ROS is Spread Spectrum.  MFSK is legal on HF, SS 
> is not.  
> 
> It isn't about bandwidth or any of the other arguments.  Since ROS is Spread 
> Spectrum then it is not allowed on HF in areas regulated by the FCC under the 
> current rules.  Skip is correct here and Andy is right to be concerned. 

So, American Radio Amateurs are, now, more restricted than other Radio 
Amateurs in the world?

Forgive me.  Ever since I was a CBer the USA seemed to have less 
restrictive laws compared to here in the UK and now we've had more 
allocated bands than in the US and less restrictive modes than in the US.

The land of the free?  LOL

Sorry, I couldn't resist this after all the years of being told that I 
was living under an oppressive government.

Dave (G0DJA)

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

[Dave Ackrill]

KH6TY wrote:
> Jose,
> 
> We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision, 
> but our FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are 
> valid. Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out.

I hate to say this, as I'm sure I'll be called all sorts of names that I 
don't deserve, but if we could get rid of many of the very loud European 
stations, as well as the US ones, in the first few years of this new 
mode, we might also attract less of the other people who seem to not 
know how to operate the mode, but seem intent on working the "DX" at any 
price...

Dave (G0DJA)

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

[Dave Sparks]

IMO, ROS is not *true* SS in the legal sense.  Other posts I've read cite an 
FCC reference that SS involves spreading the signal EVENLY over the 
bandwidth.  ROS is using 16 DISCRETE tones to modulate, with a lot more 
empty space than actual signal.  I'm curious how much of spread spectrum's 
jam resistance is created by ROS.

I plan to try ROS as soon as a new version is released which will allow me 
to utilize a non-default sound card.  I've run the currently available 
version, but the sound came out over my PC speakers rather than going into 
my interface, so I never transmitted anything.

FCC rules, IMHO, include several gray areas.  For example, is it permissable 
to send a PGP-signed message over the airwaves?  The message itself is plain 
text, but it includes a cryptographic SIGNATURE for authentication purposes. 
According to the spirit of the law, that should be a Good Thing  since 
it actually discourages the sending of false signals.  Technically, though, 
there are a few bytes of "code and cypher" attached.  We won't even discuss 
steganography, where a secret message is embedded in a harmless-appearing 
file, such as a .JPG file.

Perhaps we need a ROS specific group to discuss this mode?

--
Dave - AF6AS

- Original Message - 
From: "vinceinwaukesha" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:51 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?


> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill  wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone have a definition of real spread spectrum?  As I hate to
>> think  what will happen when/if people with even less knowledge than I
>> have of what 'real' spread spectrum is get the idea that RIO is
>> something that it is actually not and start their inevitable campaign of
>> 'It's illegal, it's immoral and it makes you fat', to use the words of
>> the song...
>>
>> Dave (G0DJA)
>>
>
> Well, as a G0 its perfectly acceptable that you don't know.  The K's N's 
> W's and A's have no such excuse.
>
> Lets check out 47CFR2.201 and see what type of signal ROS is.
>
> The first letter is modulation.  Clearly its F Frequency modulated.  I 
> read the ROS PDF and its basically a 16FSK that has its carrier frequency 
> modulated/wiggled in a peculiar pattern.
>
> The number is "nature of signal(s) modulating the main carrier".  Clearly 
> its 2, "A single channel containing quantized or digital information with 
> the use of a modulating sub-carrier, excluding time-division multiplex". 
> That sub-carrier is the 16FSK, which thankfully (?) isn't TDM data.
>
> The second letter is "type of information to be transmitted".  Well, 
> obviously that is D for data.  We're not sending "E" voice or "A" 
> telegraph or whatever here.
>
> So, the overall "FCC Emission designator" would pretty obviously be "F2D".
>
> Where can we run F2D?  First, hit FCC 97.305(c) "authorized emission 
> types" table.  The FCC says SS only on 222 and up.  I have no idea what 
> inspires people to publically claim you can only run SS on 432 and up, as 
> 97.305(c) explicitly permits it on 222 and up.  For another example, on 
> 30M we can do RTTY or DATA.
>
> How does "DATA" or "RTTY" or "SS" or "PULSE" relate to emissions 
> designators?  The FCC helpfully defines that in 97.3(c)
>
> To qualify as SS all it needs per 97.3(c)(8) is "Spread-spectrum emissions 
> using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, 
> C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as 
> the third symbol."
>
> F2D doesn't seem to match the def of "SS".
>
> To qualify as DATA all it needs per 97.3(c)(2) is "Telemetry, telecommand 
> and computer communications emissions having (i) designators with A, C, D, 
> F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol, 1 as the second symbol, and D as the 
> third symbol; (ii) emission J2D; and (iii) emissions A1C, F1C, F2C, J2C, 
> and J3C having an occupied bandwidth of 500 Hz or less when transmitted on 
> an amateur service frequency below 30 MHz. Only a digital code of a type 
> specifically authorized in this part may be transmitted."
>
> F2D doesn't seem to match the def of "DATA".
>
> Looks like USA folks can't transmit ROS at all, on any band.  Ooops.
>
> Will people fooling around with ROS get dragged to court?  Probably not. 
> See 97.305(b) "A station may transmit a test emission on any frequency 
> authorized to the control operator for brief periods for experimental 
> purposes, except that ... (essentially no SS or pulse where not oth

[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[vinceinwaukesha]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill  wrote:
>
> Does anyone have a definition of real spread spectrum?  As I hate to 
> think  what will happen when/if people with even less knowledge than I 
> have of what 'real' spread spectrum is get the idea that RIO is 
> something that it is actually not and start their inevitable campaign of 
> 'It's illegal, it's immoral and it makes you fat', to use the words of 
> the song...
> 
> Dave (G0DJA)
>

Well, as a G0 its perfectly acceptable that you don't know.  The K's N's W's 
and A's have no such excuse.

Lets check out 47CFR2.201 and see what type of signal ROS is.

The first letter is modulation.  Clearly its F Frequency modulated.  I read the 
ROS PDF and its basically a 16FSK that has its carrier frequency 
modulated/wiggled in a peculiar pattern.

The number is "nature of signal(s) modulating the main carrier".  Clearly its 
2, "A single channel containing quantized or digital information with the use 
of a modulating sub-carrier, excluding time-division multiplex".  That 
sub-carrier is the 16FSK, which thankfully (?) isn't TDM data.

The second letter is "type of information to be transmitted".  Well, obviously 
that is D for data.  We're not sending "E" voice or "A" telegraph or whatever 
here.

So, the overall "FCC Emission designator" would pretty obviously be "F2D".

Where can we run F2D?  First, hit FCC 97.305(c) "authorized emission types" 
table.  The FCC says SS only on 222 and up.  I have no idea what inspires 
people to publically claim you can only run SS on 432 and up, as 97.305(c) 
explicitly permits it on 222 and up.  For another example, on 30M we can do 
RTTY or DATA.  

How does "DATA" or "RTTY" or "SS" or "PULSE" relate to emissions designators?  
The FCC helpfully defines that in 97.3(c)

To qualify as SS all it needs per 97.3(c)(8) is "Spread-spectrum emissions 
using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, 
F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third 
symbol."

F2D doesn't seem to match the def of "SS".

To qualify as DATA all it needs per 97.3(c)(2) is "Telemetry, telecommand and 
computer communications emissions having (i) designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, 
J or R as the first symbol, 1 as the second symbol, and D as the third symbol; 
(ii) emission J2D; and (iii) emissions A1C, F1C, F2C, J2C, and J3C having an 
occupied bandwidth of 500 Hz or less when transmitted on an amateur service 
frequency below 30 MHz. Only a digital code of a type specifically authorized 
in this part may be transmitted."

F2D doesn't seem to match the def of "DATA".

Looks like USA folks can't transmit ROS at all, on any band.  Ooops.

Will people fooling around with ROS get dragged to court?  Probably not.  See 
97.305(b) "A station may transmit a test emission on any frequency authorized 
to the control operator for brief periods for experimental purposes, except 
that ... (essentially no SS or pulse where not otherwise permitted)".  So, 
fooling around for testing and experimentation of a new mode is well within the 
law by this exception.  Running a contest, a regular schedule, a formal net, 
DXing, QSL card collecting, county hunting, or extensive ragchewing would be 
strictly verboten under 97.305(b).  The key is doing it in a documented manner 
as an experiment, like as a research experiment or an article for QEX.  Realize 
that big brother can deprive you of your life and liberty at any time for any 
reason, its not as if a rule prevents that, it just claims Big Bro won't do it, 
and politicians never lie...

In summary, the problem seems to be FM modulating the carrier of the 16FSK.

73 de Vince N9NFB

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

[jose alberto nieto ros]

¿Olivia is only MFSK?  Why there is so ignorant people in the world?





De: Dave 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 23:03
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

  
Jose (and all), 

My two-cents worth:  

Olivia is MFSK (or AMFSK), ROS is Spread Spectrum.  MFSK is legal on HF, SS is 
not.  

It isn't about bandwidth or any of the other arguments.  Since ROS is Spread 
Spectrum then it is not allowed on HF in areas regulated by the FCC under the 
current rules.  Skip is correct here and Andy is right to be concerned. 


Dave
K3DCW  
 
Dave

Real radio bounces off the sky





On 19 Feb, at 4:47 PM, KH6TY wrote:

Jose,
>
>We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision, but our 
>FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are valid. 
>Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out.
>
>73 - Skip KH6TY
>
>
>
>jose alberto nieto ros wrote: 
>  
>>We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal.




  

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

[Marco IK1ODO]

>
>jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
>>Â
>>We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal.

The only difference I see, Olivia does not say to 
be "spread spectrum", ROS does so :-) - but it's 
exactly the same approach, as many other digital modes.
So, what is the exact "spread spectrum" 
definition given by FCC? There should be one, somewhere.

73 - Marco IK1ODO

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

[Dave]

Jose (and all),

My two-cents worth:  

Olivia is MFSK (or AMFSK), ROS is Spread Spectrum.  MFSK is legal on HF, SS is 
not.  

It isn't about bandwidth or any of the other arguments.  Since ROS is Spread 
Spectrum then it is not allowed on HF in areas regulated by the FCC under the 
current rules.  Skip is correct here and Andy is right to be concerned. 


Dave
K3DCW  

Dave

Real radio bounces off the sky





On 19 Feb, at 4:47 PM, KH6TY wrote:

> Jose,
> 
> We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision, but our 
> FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are valid. 
> Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out.
> 
> 73 - Skip KH6TY
> 
> 
> 
> jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
>> 
>>  
>> We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal.

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

[Bill V WA7NWP]

> We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision, but our 
> FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are valid. 
> Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out.

Might this give some wider data on UHF?   20KHz?   50 KHz?   Would it
be limited by more then the soundcard and RF platform?

Bill - WA7NWP

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

[KH6TY]

Jose,

We want to be able to use the mode on HF, but it is not our decision, 
but our FCC's decision, for whatever reasons they currently think are 
valid. Fortunately, it may work well on VHF and HF, so I plan to find out.


73 - Skip KH6TY




jose alberto nieto ros wrote:
 
We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal.


 



*De:* KH6TY 
*Para:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Enviado:* vie,19 febrero, 2010 19:19
*Asunto:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

 


All,

If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier 
suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed 
carrier frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency 
hopping is frequency hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the 
carriers are generated. That is really too bad for US hams as all 
morning I have been receiving alerts and printouts from many stations 
on 14.080 - many times when the ROS signal can hardly be heard above 
the noise.


I'm afraid that Andy's concerns are real, and unless the FCC clarifies 
otherwise, ROS is currently illegal in the US in my personal opinion 
and interpretation of the FCC rules.


However, it looks like a worthwhile mode to test on UHF (432 MHz) 
where SS "is" allowed and we will be doing that during our daily 
digital experiments every morning on 432.090 SSB. The Doppler shift, 
multipath distortion, and "fast flutter", as well as QSB often as deep 
as 15 dB, often make even S3 phone signals unintelligible. We have 
been also been testing extensively with DominoEx 4 on FM (DominoEX 
does not survive Doppler shift well on SSB) and Olivia 16-500 and 
4-500 on both FM and  SSB, often with better copy than with  SSB 
phone, and especially so when signals are near the noise threshold. 
The path length is 200 miles, so signals are usually near the noise 
threshold during these winter months where there is no propagation 
enhancement.


I'll post the results of our tests on 432 MHz here during the next two 
weeks as we compare ROS to Olivia. So far, plain old CW can be copied 
when even Olivia cannot, but the CW "note" is very raspy sounding, 
much like it is during aroura communication. It would help a lot if it 
were possible to select alternate soundcards and many of us on UHF and 
VHF are using a second soundcard for digital operations.


73 - Skip KH6TY

  



nietorosdj wrote:
 



One comment: It is not the same a Spread Spectrum Transceiver (like 
military radios) that to send digital data into an audio channel on 
standard SSB transceiver. They are different things. So, when we read 
Spread Spectrum is not legal, first we must know what we are reading.


--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
<mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, Andy obrien  
wrote:

>
> <http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/digitalrad io/members; 
_ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY 3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU 5NzE0BGdycElkAzE 4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3B 
JZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA 4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2x rA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1 lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA 
-?o=6 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA-?o=6>>Joe,

> N8FQ...
>
> http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/news/part97/ 
d-305.html 
<http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html>

>
> Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF. Is there another 
part of

> part 97 I am missing ?
>
> Andy K3UK
>

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

[John B. Stephensen]

It's my interpretation of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47, Part 
97. You can see the authorized emissions table at 97.305 and the definition of 
SS (spread spectrum) at 97.3(c)(8). You can acces a copy via the FCC web site 
at www.fcc.gov. FCC rules are much more restrictive than those of any other 
country that I have seen. A few years ago, the ARRL proposed changes (which I 
supported) that would have changed the regulations to limit bandwidth rather 
than emission type but their members rejected the idea and they withdrew the 
petition.

73,

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: jose alberto nieto ros 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 19:30 UTC
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?




  That's your opinion. It does not mean it's true.




--
  De: John B. Stephensen 
  Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
  Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 20:19
  Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?



  Unfortunately, its illegal below 420 MHz in the U.S.

  73

  John
  KD6OZH

- Original Message - 
From: "John Becker, WØJAB" 
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 19:12 UTC
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?


  
Ok what's the bottom line?

Is it or is it not?

At this time my in box is overloaded with "ROS" subjects.
And rather reading them "all" or "deleting all" 

Can someone just tell me?

John, W0JAB






  

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

[John B. Stephensen]

This 1999 report and order didn't change the frequencies allowed. The 2007 
edition of the FCC rules and regulations shows that SS is allowed down to 222 
MHz.

73,

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: Glenn L. Roeser 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 19:46 UTC
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?




  Hello to all,
  I found this on the ARRL Site:

  QST de W1AW  
  ARRL Bulletin 62  ARLB062
  From ARRL Headquarters  
  Newington CT  September 9, 1999
  To all radio amateurs 

  SB QST ARL ARLB062
  ARLB062 FCC relaxes rules for spread spectrum

  The FCC has relaxed rules governing the use of spread spectrum
  techniques by radio amateurs and opened the door to the possibility
  of international spread spectrum communication. The Report and Order
  in WT Docket 97-12 adopted August 31 concludes a proceeding that
  originated with an ARRL petition in December 1995 and has been
  pending since 1997.

  The FCC adopted rules that will allow Amateur Radio stations to
  transmit additional spread spectrum emission types. Once the new
  rules become effective November 1, hams will be able to use
  techniques other than frequency hopping and direct sequence
  spreading. In addition, the new FCC rules will permit US hams to use
  spread spectrum techniques to communicate with amateurs in other
  countries that permit SS. Spread spectrum communication has been
  limited to stations within FCC jurisdiction.

  The new rules require that spread spectrum stations running more
  than 1 W incorporate automatic transmitter power control. Amateur
  stations using SS are restricted to a maximum power of 100 W.

  The Commission also amended the rules to eliminate what it called
  ''now-unnecessary record keeping and station identification
  requirements'' that apply only to stations using spread spectrum.
  The FCC agreed to let SS stations identify themselves using
  conventions developed by the Amateur Radio community.

  Roanoke Division Vice Director Dennis Bodson, W4PWF, who has
  followed the League's Spread Spectrum initiative through from start
  to finish was pleased with the outcome of the proceeding. ''I'm very
  happy,'' he said. ''The League got everything it wanted and
  more--all of which, I believe, will help to promote this mode on the
  amateur bands.''

  Stations employing spread spectrum techniques will remain secondary
  to--and must accept all interference from--stations employing other
  authorized modes. The FCC declined to authorize the use of spread
  spectrum techniques on additional bands or frequencies.

  A copy of the FCC's complete Report and Order is available at
  http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/wt97-12.
  
  /EX





--
  From: jose alberto nieto ros 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Fri, February 19, 2010 2:30:01 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?



  That's your opinion. It does not mean it's true.




--
  De: John B. Stephensen 
  Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
  Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 20:19
  Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?



  Unfortunately, its illegal below 420 MHz in the U.S.

  73

  John
  KD6OZH

- Original Message - 
From: "John Becker, WØJAB" 
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 19:12 UTC
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?


  
Ok what's the bottom line?

Is it or is it not?

At this time my in box is overloaded with "ROS" subjects.
And rather reading them "all" or "deleting all" 

Can someone just tell me?

John, W0JAB








  

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

[John Bradley]

please,  please, no , not to Canada, they all argue too much hi hi

 

john

VE5MU

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Simon HB9DRV
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 1:37 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

 

  

Do I hear the sound of a mass exodus to Canada? Or maybe back to Europe?

 

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

http://sdr-radio.com

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of John B. Stephensen




Unfortunately, its illegal below 420 MHz in the U.S.

 

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

[Glenn L. Roeser]

Hello to all,
I found this on the ARRL Site:

QST de W1AW  
ARRL Bulletin 62  ARLB062
>From ARRL Headquarters  
Newington CT  September 9, 1999
To all radio amateurs 

SB QST ARL ARLB062
ARLB062 FCC relaxes rules for spread spectrum

The FCC has relaxed rules governing the use of spread spectrum
techniques by radio amateurs and opened the door to the possibility
of international spread spectrum communication. The Report and Order
in WT Docket 97-12 adopted August 31 concludes a proceeding that
originated with an ARRL petition in December 1995 and has been
pending since 1997.

The FCC adopted rules that will allow Amateur Radio stations to
transmit additional spread spectrum emission types. Once the new
rules become effective November 1, hams will be able to use
techniques other than frequency hopping and direct sequence
spreading. In addition, the new FCC rules will permit US hams to use
spread spectrum techniques to communicate with amateurs in other
countries that permit SS. Spread spectrum communication has been
limited to stations within FCC jurisdiction.

The new rules require that spread spectrum stations running more
than 1 W incorporate automatic transmitter power control. Amateur
stations using SS are restricted to a maximum power of 100 W.

The Commission also amended the rules to eliminate what it called
''now-unnecessary record keeping and station identification
requirements'' that apply only to stations using spread spectrum.
The FCC agreed to let SS stations identify themselves using
conventions developed by the Amateur Radio community.

Roanoke Division Vice Director Dennis Bodson, W4PWF, who has
followed the League's Spread Spectrum initiative through from start
to finish was pleased with the outcome of the proceeding. ''I'm very
happy,'' he said. ''The League got everything it wanted and
more--all of which, I believe, will help to promote this mode on the
amateur bands.''

Stations employing spread spectrum techniques will remain secondary
to--and must accept all interference from--stations employing other
authorized modes. The FCC declined to authorize the use of spread
spectrum techniques on additional bands or frequencies.

A copy of the FCC's complete Report and Order is available at
http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/wt97-12.

/EX






From: jose alberto nieto ros 
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, February 19, 2010 2:30:01 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

  
That's your opinion. It does not mean it's true.





De: John B. Stephensen 
Para: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 20:19
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

  
Unfortunately, its illegal below 420 MHz in the U.S.
 
73
 
John
KD6OZH
 
- Original Message - 
>From: "John Becker, WØJAB" 
>To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
>Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 19:12 UTC
>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
>
>  
>Ok what's the bottom line?
>
>Is it or is it not?
>
>At this time my in box is overloaded with "ROS" subjects.
>And rather reading them "all" or "deleting all" 
>
>Can someone just tell me?
>
>John, W0JAB
>
>




  

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

[jose alberto nieto ros]

That's your opinion. It does not mean it's true.





De: John B. Stephensen 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 20:19
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

  
Unfortunately, its illegal below 420 MHz in the U.S.
 
73
 
John
KD6OZH
 
- Original Message - 
>From: "John Becker, WØJAB" 
>To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
>Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 19:12 UTC
>Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
>
>  
>Ok what's the bottom line?
>
>Is it or is it not?
>
>At this time my in box is overloaded with "ROS" subjects.
>And rather reading them "all" or "deleting all" 
>
>Can someone just tell me?
>
>John, W0JAB
>
>



  

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

[Simon HB9DRV]

Do I hear the sound of a mass exodus to Canada? Or maybe back to Europe?

 

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

http://sdr-radio.com

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of John B. Stephensen



Unfortunately, its illegal below 420 MHz in the U.S.

 

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

[John B. Stephensen]

Unfortunately, its illegal below 420 MHz in the U.S.

73

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: "John Becker, WØJAB" 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 19:12 UTC
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?



  Ok what's the bottom line?

  Is it or is it not?

  At this time my in box is overloaded with "ROS" subjects.
  And rather reading them "all" or "deleting all" 

  Can someone just tell me?

  John, W0JAB



  

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

[Dave Ackrill]

Claudio wrote:
> HI: I M calling 14080 usb, beam europe but no reply.
> 
> claudio-LU2VC

Sorry Claudio, things seemed to be getting quiet and I went to 30M using 
JT65a.

Dave (G0DJA)




Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page 
http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html
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] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[John Becker, WØJAB]

Ok what's the bottom line?

Is it or is it not?

At this time my in box is overloaded with "ROS" subjects.
And rather reading them "all"  or "deleting all" 

Can someone just tell me?

John, W0JAB

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

[John B. Stephensen]

I agree. Spread spectrum is illegal below 420 MHz in the U.S. and the ROS 
documentation describes a spread-spectrum system. It's certainly no wider than 
modes that use Walsh codes or low-rate convolutional codes but these systems 
increase bandwidth by increasing redundancy and are therefore legal. ROS is 
another good reason for regulation by bandwidth instead of the overly 
restrictive system in the current FCC regulations. 

73,

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: KH6TY 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 18:19 UTC
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?



  All,

  If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier 
suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed carrier 
frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping is frequency 
hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the carriers are generated. That 
is really too bad for US hams as all morning I have been receiving alerts and 
printouts from many stations on 14.080 - many times when the ROS signal can 
hardly be heard above the noise.

  I'm afraid that Andy's concerns are real, and unless the FCC clarifies 
otherwise, ROS is currently illegal in the US in my personal opinion and 
interpretation of the FCC rules.

  However, it looks like a worthwhile mode to test on UHF (432 MHz) where SS 
"is" allowed and we will be doing that during our daily digital experiments 
every morning on 432.090 SSB. The Doppler shift, multipath distortion, and 
"fast flutter", as well as QSB often as deep as 15 dB, often make even S3 phone 
signals unintelligible. We have been also been testing extensively with 
DominoEx 4 on FM (DominoEX does not survive Doppler shift well on SSB) and 
Olivia 16-500 and 4-500 on both FM and  SSB, often with better copy than with  
SSB phone, and especially so when signals are near the noise threshold. The 
path length is 200 miles, so signals are usually near the noise threshold 
during these winter months where there is no propagation enhancement.

  I'll post the results of our tests on 432 MHz here during the next two weeks 
as we compare ROS to Olivia. So far, plain old CW can be copied when even 
Olivia cannot, but the CW "note" is very raspy sounding, much like it is during 
aroura communication. It would help a lot if it were possible to select 
alternate soundcards and many of us on UHF and VHF are using a second soundcard 
for digital operations.


73 - Skip KH6TY



  nietorosdj wrote: 
  

One comment: It is not the same a Spread Spectrum Transceiver (like 
military radios) that to send digital data into an audio channel on standard 
SSB transceiver. They are different things. So, when we read Spread Spectrum is 
not legal, first we must know what we are reading.

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>
> 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA-?o=6>Joe,
> N8FQ...
> 
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html
> 
> Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF. Is there another part of
> part 97 I am missing ?
> 
> Andy K3UK
>




  

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

[jose alberto nieto ros]

We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal. 

 




De: KH6TY 
Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: vie,19 febrero, 2010 19:19
Asunto: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

  
All,

If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier 
suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed carrier 
frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping is frequency 
hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the carriers are generated. That 
is really too bad for US hams as all morning I have been receiving alerts and 
printouts from many stations on 14.080 - many times when the ROS signal can 
hardly be heard above the noise.

I'm afraid that Andy's concerns are real, and unless the FCC clarifies 
otherwise, ROS is currently illegal in the US in my personal opinion and 
interpretation of the FCC rules.

However, it looks like a worthwhile mode to test on UHF (432 MHz) where SS "is" 
allowed and we will be doing that during our daily digital experiments every 
morning on 432.090 SSB. The Doppler shift, multipath distortion, and "fast 
flutter", as well as QSB often as deep as 15 dB, often make even S3 phone 
signals unintelligible. We have been also been testing extensively with 
DominoEx 4 on FM (DominoEX does not survive Doppler shift well on SSB) and 
Olivia 16-500 and 4-500 on both FM and  SSB, often with better copy than with  
SSB phone, and especially so when signals are near the noise threshold. The 
path length is 200 miles, so signals are usually near the noise threshold 
during these winter months where there is no propagation enhancement.

I'll post the results of our tests on 432 MHz here during the next two weeks as 
we compare ROS to Olivia. So far, plain old CW can be copied when even Olivia 
cannot, but the CW "note" is very raspy sounding, much like it is during aroura 
communication. It would help a lot if it were possible to select alternate 
soundcards and many of us on UHF and VHF are using a second soundcard for 
digital operations.

73 - Skip KH6TY



nietorosdj wrote: 
  
>
>One comment: It is not the same a Spread Spectrum Transceiver (like military 
>radios) that to send digital data into an audio channel on standard SSB 
>transceiver. They are different things. So, when we read Spread Spectrum is 
>not legal, first we must know what we are reading.
>
>--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>>
>> <http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/digitalrad io/members; _ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY 
>> 3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU 5NzE0BGdycElkAzE 4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3B JZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA 
>> 4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2x rA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1 lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA -?o=6>Joe,
>> N8FQ...
>> 
>> http://www.arrl. org/FandES/ field/regulation s/news/part97/ d-305.html
>> 
>> Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF. Is there another part of
>> part 97 I am missing ?
>> 
>> Andy K3UK
>>
>
>



  

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

[Claudio]

HI: I M calling 14080 usb, beam europe but no reply.

claudio-LU2VC

2010/2/19 Dave Ackrill 

>
>
> KH6TY wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier
> > suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed
> > carrier frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping
> > is frequency hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the carriers
> > are generated.
>
> That's strange, because I see many US Amateurs using modes such as
> Olivia and various other data modes...
>
> Dave (G0DJA)
>
>  
>

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

[KH6TY]

The difference is the use of Frequency Hopping. In Olivia and the other 
digital modes, frequency hopping is not used but the data is sent 
redundantly over the width of the signal - MT63 is a good example.


From the ROS documentation:

"ROS uses a Spread Spectrum technique known as Frequency-hopping spread 
spectrum (FHSS). In a conventional 16FSK system, the data symbols 
modulates a fixed frequency carrier; but in a FH/16FSK system, the data 
symbols modulates a carrier whose frequency pseudorandomly determined. 
In either case, a single tone is transmitted. ROS modulation scheme can 
be thought of as a two-step modulation process -- data modulation and 
frequency hopping modulation---even thought it can be implemented as a 
single step whereby the frequency synthesizer produces a transmission 
tone based on the simultaneous dictates of the PN code and the data. At 
each frequency hop time a PN generator feeds the frequency synthesizer a 
frequency word (a sequence of l chips) which dictates one of 2^l 
symbol-set positions. The frequency hopping bandwidth, and the minimum 
frequency space between consecutive hops positions, dictate the minimum 
number of chips necessary in the frequency word."


I think the FCC rules are more concerned with the encryption aspect of 
Frequency Hopping than with the spreading bandwidth, but ROS can be 
copied by anyone with the ROS software, so there is a good chance the 
FCC might allow ROS on HF in the US, but as it stands right now, the 
definition of the ROS modulation scheme classifies it as Spread Spectrum 
and Frequency Hopping, and the ROS documentation agrees with the FCC. :-(


73 - Skip KH6TY




Dave Ackrill wrote:
 


KH6TY wrote:
> All,
>
> If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier
> suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed
> carrier frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping
> is frequency hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the carriers
> are generated.

That's strange, because I see many US Amateurs using modes such as
Olivia and various other data modes...

Dave (G0DJA)

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

[Dave Ackrill]

KH6TY wrote:
> All,
> 
> If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier 
> suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed 
> carrier frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping 
> is frequency hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the carriers 
> are generated. 

That's strange, because I see many US Amateurs using modes such as 
Olivia and various other data modes...

Dave (G0DJA)

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

[KH6TY]

All,

If we accept the fact that a SSB transmitter with sufficient carrier 
suppression simply generates an RF carrier equal to the suppressed 
carrier frequency plus the tone frequency (USB), then frequency hopping 
is frequency hopping (spread spectrum), regardless of how the carriers 
are generated. That is really too bad for US hams as all morning I have 
been receiving alerts and printouts from many stations on 14.080 - many 
times when the ROS signal can hardly be heard above the noise.


I'm afraid that Andy's concerns are real, and unless the FCC clarifies 
otherwise, ROS is currently illegal in the US in my personal opinion and 
interpretation of the FCC rules.


However, it looks like a worthwhile mode to test on UHF (432 MHz) where 
SS "is" allowed and we will be doing that during our daily digital 
experiments every morning on 432.090 SSB. The Doppler shift, multipath 
distortion, and "fast flutter", as well as QSB often as deep as 15 dB, 
often make even S3 phone signals unintelligible. We have been also been 
testing extensively with DominoEx 4 on FM (DominoEX does not survive 
Doppler shift well on SSB) and Olivia 16-500 and 4-500 on both FM and  
SSB, often with better copy than with  SSB phone, and especially so when 
signals are near the noise threshold. The path length is 200 miles, so 
signals are usually near the noise threshold during these winter months 
where there is no propagation enhancement.


I'll post the results of our tests on 432 MHz here during the next two 
weeks as we compare ROS to Olivia. So far, plain old CW can be copied 
when even Olivia cannot, but the CW "note" is very raspy sounding, much 
like it is during aroura communication. It would help a lot if it were 
possible to select alternate soundcards and many of us on UHF and VHF 
are using a second soundcard for digital operations.


73 - Skip KH6TY




nietorosdj wrote:
 



One comment: It is not the same a Spread Spectrum Transceiver (like 
military radios) that to send digital data into an audio channel on 
standard SSB transceiver. They are different things. So, when we read 
Spread Spectrum is not legal, first we must know what we are reading.


--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
, Andy obrien  wrote:

>
> 
>Joe,

> N8FQ...
>
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html 


>
> Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF. Is there another 
part of

> part 97 I am missing ?
>
> Andy K3UK
>

[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[nietorosdj]

One comment: It is not the same a Spread Spectrum Transceiver (like military 
radios) that to send digital data into an audio channel on standard SSB 
transceiver. They are different things. So, when we read Spread Spectrum is not 
legal, first we must know what we are reading.

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>
> Joe,
> N8FQ...
> 
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html
> 
> Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF.  Is there another part of
> part 97 I am missing ?
> 
> Andy K3UK
>

[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?

[nietorosdj]

Hi,

One comment. A thing is a transceiver of Spread Spectrum (like military radios) 
and other very different is to send digital data into an audio channel on SSB, 
like PSK31, JT65, OLIVIA 1000, ROS...etc...are differents thinks. So, we must 
know what we are reading. 




--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien  wrote:
>
> Joe,
> N8FQ...
> 
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-305.html
> 
> Describes Spread Spectrum as not permitted on HF.  Is there another part of
> part 97 I am missing ?
> 
> Andy K3UK
>