[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
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 kh...@... 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 mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien k3ukandy@ wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA-?o=6 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA-?o=6Joe, N8FQ... http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/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?
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 kh...@comcast.net 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 Membershttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm5zbWZkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY3NTgxNDY-?o=6 14 - New Fileshttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbWY1bHZtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 3 Visit Your Grouphttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMTRkYnI3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Start a New Topichttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMjd2ZG1tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html [image: Yahoo! Groups]http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcGJvazlrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 Switch to: Text-Onlydigitalradio-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=change+delivery+format:+Traditional, Daily Digestdigitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=email+delivery:+Digest• Unsubscribe digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=unsubscribe• Terms of Use http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ . -- hfradio...@gmail.com It isn't radio unless it bounces off the sky
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
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 kh...@comcast.net mailto:kh...@comcast.net 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 http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/Chip64.pdf Recent Activity: * New Members http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm5zbWZkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY3NTgxNDY-?o=6 14 * New Files http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbWY1bHZtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 3 Visit Your Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMTRkYnI3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Start a New Topic http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMjd2ZG1tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Yahoo! Groups http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcGJvazlrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 Switch to: Text-Only mailto:digitalradio-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=change+delivery+format:+Traditional, Daily Digest mailto:digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=email+delivery:+Digest • Unsubscribe mailto:digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=unsubscribe • Terms of Use http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ . -- hfradio...@gmail.com mailto:hfradio...@gmail.com It isn't radio unless it bounces off the sky
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
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 kh...@comcast.net 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 Membershttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm5zbWZkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY3NTgxNDY-?o=6 14 - New Fileshttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbWY1bHZtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 3 Visit Your Grouphttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMTRkYnI3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Start a New Topichttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMjd2ZG1tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html [image: Yahoo! Groups]http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcGJvazlrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 Switch to: Text-Onlydigitalradio-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=change+delivery+format:+Traditional, Daily Digestdigitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=email+delivery:+Digest• Unsubscribe digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=unsubscribe• Terms of Use http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ . 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?
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 kh...@comcast.net 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 Membershttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm5zbWZkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY3NTgxNDY-?o=6 14 - New Fileshttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbWY1bHZtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 3 Visit Your Grouphttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMTRkYnI3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Start a New Topichttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMjd2ZG1tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html [image: Yahoo! Groups]http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcGJvazlrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 Switch to: Text-Onlydigitalradio-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=change+delivery+format:+Traditional, Daily Digestdigitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=email+delivery:+Digest• Unsubscribe digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=unsubscribe• Terms of Use http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ . Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html Yahoo! Groups Links
[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... 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?
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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
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 kh...@comcast.net 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 Membershttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm5zbWZkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY3NTgxNDY-?o=6 14 - New Fileshttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbWY1bHZtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 3 Visit Your Grouphttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMTRkYnI3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Start a New Topichttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMjd2ZG1tBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI2Njc1ODE0Ng-- Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html [image: Yahoo! Groups]http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcGJvazlrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjY2NzU4MTQ2 Switch to: Text-Onlydigitalradio-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=change+delivery+format:+Traditional, Daily Digestdigitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=email+delivery:+Digest• Unsubscribe digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=unsubscribe• Terms of Use http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ . 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 required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
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: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
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?
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 Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page
[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
Please keep comments related to amateur radio. Andy K3UK Owner. --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bob John a...@... 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?
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?
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 jhhay...@... wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY 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?]
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 , 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
[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, n9dsj n9...@... 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?
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 ac.tal...@btinternet.com 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 digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... 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?
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 hfradio...@gmail.com 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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
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?
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 n9...@comcast.net *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 kh...@... wrote: The answer is in Wikipedia for Spread Spectrum. 73 - Skip KH6TY
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?
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
[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
You make sense to me, Jim. Good points. Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, J. Moen j...@... 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?
[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
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 k3uka...@... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA-?o=6Joe, 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?
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 k3uka...@... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA-?o=6Joe, 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?
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 k3uka...@... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA-?o=6 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA-?o=6Joe, N8FQ... http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/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?
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?
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?
HI: I M calling 14080 usb, beam europe but no reply. claudio-LU2VC 2010/2/19 Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@tiscali.co.uk 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?
We can see it as we want, but if OLIVIA is legal, ROS is legal. De: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net 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 k3uka...@.. . wrote: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/digitalrad io/members; _ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY 3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU 5NzE0BGdycElkAzE 4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3B JZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA 4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2x rA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1 lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA -?o=6Joe, 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?
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 k3uka...@... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbzY3MjhrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4NzExODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYzMTA4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNjY1OTc1MzA-?o=6Joe, 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?
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?
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?
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?
That's your opinion. It does not mean it's true. De: John B. Stephensen kd6...@comcast.net 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?
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?
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 nietoro...@yahoo.es 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 kd6...@comcast. net 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?
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?
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 nietoro...@yahoo.es 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 kd6...@comcast. net 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?
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 kd6...@comcast.net 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, 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 kh...@comcast.net *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 k3uka...@.. . 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=6Joe, 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?
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?
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?
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?
¿Olivia is only MFSK? Why there is so ignorant people in the world? De: Dave hfradio...@gmail.com 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.
[digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@... 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?
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 tm 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 vi...@mulhollon.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:51 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA? --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ackrill dave.g0...@... 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
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
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 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?
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?
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?
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
[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...otherwise for EME I now have a 10dB path margin :) 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY kh...@... wrote: The answer is in Wikipedia for Spread Spectrum. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS, legal in USA?
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 n9...@comcast.net 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 kh...@... wrote: The answer is in Wikipedia for Spread Spectrum. 73 - Skip KH6TY
