The FCC has been very remise in keeping up with their own opinions compared
to the published rules. In fact if you go too far too the edge they will
issue at worst a cease and desist which you will comply with and add an
apology Based on that case you will apply for a modification of the rules.
Goi
Skip if you call this a regulation, I agree with Garret. It is a misguided
one and a victim of unintended consequences. The whole discussion is stupid
and you, Skip, are too anal retentive. I work in broadcast and there are
many un-updated FCC regulations that the commission subsequently licenses
Andy
You make a lot more sense than some of the children in this group who want
to just whine to the FCC and ARRL.
On 7/15/10 6:15 PM, "Andy obrien" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> The comment in parenthesis in number 8 are the comments that reflect my view
> of why this fine software and mode a
The creator of ROS does not present himself as a very nice or honest person
but I also believe there are cultural and language issues that add to the
problem. Before all this started several months ago, I did not believe the
initial presentation that it was really spread spectrum but rather somethi
It is generally accepted that 10 times bandwidth is the minimum necessary to
achieve enough processing gain to make the use of SS worthwhile.
On 7/13/10 3:55 PM, "J. Moen" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There's the generally accepted definition of SS, quoted below and referring to
> bandwid
Spread Spectrum does not unto itself comprise a means of encrypting
information although encryption often accompanies it.
On 7/13/10 3:50 PM, "Lester Veenstra" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> The rules also make it clear that SS (or any other coding system) cannot be
> used to hid the meaning.
Very simple change just add ³greater than 3 khz² to the existing rules.
On 7/13/10 3:28 PM, "Dave Wright" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> I think that a lot of people are missing the point with ROS and Spread
> Spectrum here in the US.
>
> The author defined it as Spread Spectrum, only changing
The FCC never said anything that was a commitment. A staff member wrote a
very non committal letter basically hoping you would go away. This FCC stuff
is silly.
On 7/12/10 5:33 PM, "KH6TY" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Unless there is spread spectrum in ROS you cannot use it. Of course, you can
Just keep the FCC out of this. They do will not deal with such issues. If
pushed, the out come will not be pretty. This was discussed at Dayton a few
years out. Basically we either self police or risk extinction.
On 7/12/10 5:00 PM, "Rein A" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Skip,
>
> T
Why do you persist in getting the FCC involved? You are potentially
damaging the hobby as a whole. If one is qualified to hold a license the FCC
presumes ones ability to determine what operations are legal.
On 7/12/10 1:28 PM, "KH6TY" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Lester,
> The "inventor" has
use it on HF
> under FCC jurisdiction.
>
> That is too bad, because ROS is definitely fun to use.
>
> 73 - Skip KH6TY
>
>
>
>
> w2xj wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> If there were documentation on ROS then there would the possibility of
>>
>> inves
If there were documentation on ROS then there would the possibility of
investigating the problem further and maybe adding improvements. Part of
the problem is that even if there is a large degree of spreading
compared to the data rate, the channel is still quite narrow and a large
portion of i
For receive only there is also Perseus. It is about the same price as
the SDR-14. You can see the radio and read about some real world
performance from the following links:
http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/commrxvr/0122.html
http://www.nitehawk.com/sm5bsz/perseus/perseus.htm
http://www.ni
KH6TY
W2XJ wrote:
>
>
>
> But everybody has phone capability. That should be adequate.
>
>
>
>
> From: Dave AA6YQ
> Reply-To:
> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:54:48 -0400
> To:
> Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC -
But everybody has phone capability. That should be adequate.
From: Dave AA6YQ
Reply-To:
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:54:48 -0400
To:
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part
97
Unless you can convince the transceiver manufacturers to include the
capab
The FCC has addressed the cryptographic aspects of spread spectrum. Only
certain relatively short PN codes are permitted for spread spectrum
operation in the currently authorized bands. It is relatively trivial to
cycle through those codes and receive the signal. The downside is that
the techn
I think the comment was broader based. Never go to the FCC for anything.
They want to be as hands off amateur radio as possible. They expect you
to interpret the rules and act accordingly, that is part of what your
qualification to hold a licensee is about.
vinceinwaukesha wrote:
> I've recent
Well said Alan
I agree, going to the FCC anytime is marching the hobby one step closer to
the grave.
From: Alan Barrow
Reply-To:
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:06:56 -0500
To:
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ROS
(K3UK Sked Pages)
pd4u_dares wrote
problem. It is just that the author, who claims he is
the dependable source, simply cannot be trusted 100% to tell the truth, and
has already reversed himself once.
Tough situation. :-(
73 - Skip KH6TY
W2XJ wrote:
>
>
>
> Skip
>
> Do you really think the FCC will put t
> - Original Message -
> W2XJ wrote:
>> > Skip
>> >
>> > An FCC staff member told an interested group at
>> > Dayton that if they were qualified to hold their license, they should have
>> > the ability to read and interpret the ru
Skip
Do you really think the FCC will put that much effort into this? They really
want amateur radio to be self regulating. I think that people who bother the
comish with such trivia degrades the hobby. When the administration of our
activities become too burdensome, the FCC will be less inclined
.
73 - Skip KH6TY
W2XJ wrote:
>
>
>
> I have a different take on this. There are a number of modes that uses
> vertebrae coding which could be mis-described as spread spectrum by some. The
> problem with part 97 is that it tries to be as broad as possible where
> tec
Agreed, the more letters to the FCC the more problems for amateur radio.
From: "John B. Stephensen"
Reply-To:
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:16:22 -
To:
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response
If someone sent a letter to the FCC about Chip64 they would get
can be part of such proof.
Other's opinions may vary...
73 - Skip KH6TY
W2XJ wrote:
>
>
>
> Skip
>
> You are over thinking this. The FCC said as they always do that you as a
> licensee must possess the technical skill to evaluate whether or not a
> particu
Skip
You are over thinking this. The FCC said as they always do that you as a
licensee must possess the technical skill to evaluate whether or not a
particular mode meets the rules. On Jose¹s part a better technical
description and some clarification would be very helpful to this end. I
think just
I think this disagreement will continue for some time. Me, I will be firing
up in the HF bands in the near future.
From: wd4kpd
Reply-To:
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:15:50 -
To:
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Consensus? Is ROS Legal in US?`
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <
Jose
If I am to understand you correctly, the coding algorithms are being held
privately. If that is the case, I will have to switch sides and question the
legality of it¹s use not only in the US but in many other parts of the world
as well. There is a general prohibition of the use of encryption
This is partially a language problem. A complete block diagram of both the
transmit and receive sides of the system would do wonders to clarify what
the system actually is. The partial receive diagram surely looked like MSK
to me.
From: jose alberto nieto ros
Reply-To:
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010
I am not going to wade back into part 97 for this, but I believe 5 khz audio
is beyond the scope of being communications quality. I know a number people
who have a lot of rebuilt broadcast audio gear and are also audiophiles,
many in the pro audio business and they are really in to this. Regardless
Bonnie you have a Ham unfriendly addenda. Say what you like but at the end
of the day it is BS.
From: expeditionradio
Reply-To:
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:09:14 -
To:
Subject: [digitalradio] FCC Technology Jail: ROS Dead on HF for USA Hams
Given the fact that ROS Modem has been
es to such a process.
73 - Skip KH6TY
w2xj wrote:
>
>
>
> There are two very common misconceptions in that theory. The first is
> that SS is unto itself not always a fully digital mode. and A, F, or J
>
> in that case indicates the nature of the narrow band signal
width of a phone signal), which, until ruled otherwise (and
> I hope it will be) is spread spectrum according to the current FCC
> rules, and is currently legal only above 222 Mhz.
>
> 73 - Skip KH6TY
>
>
>
>
> Rik van Riel wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02/21/2010
That is part of the story but SS in that context is specifically defined
in 97.3.
KH6TY wrote:
>
>§97.305 Authorized emission types is the regulation that
>authorizes SS for 222 Mhz and above only.
>
> 73 - Skip KH6TY
>
>
>
>
> w2xj wrote:
>&g
s not. Until then, the specific regulations regarding SS are
> assumed to be the law in this country, no matter how badly it is
> desired to use the new mode, and what rationalizations are made for
> being able to use it.
>
> This road has been traveled before!
>
> 73
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. St
I have spent the last hour looking through part 97. I find nothing that
would prohibit ROS in the HF bands subject to adhering to those segments
where the bandwidth is allowed. In fact the rules would appear to
support such operation:
(b) Where authorized by §§ 97.305(c)
and 97.307(f) of this
True but their eggs are not in one basket. Also, DHS is in a better
position to use ALE compared to an ad hock arrangement. How much ALE
traffic has passed from Haiti? I know SSB is up but to an extremely
limited extent.
expeditionradio wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, w
The problem is that if there are not enough of these radios (if built)
deployed world wide, the chance of one being in an impoverished country
and usable are quite small. At the end of the day in a dire emergency
CW, possibly AM and SSB are the only dependable modes. In places where
Hams are l
This is a problem with Yahoo Groups and some other HTML based email systems.
If a person who is not fully computer savvy uses the HTML feature for the
group, there is no quoting. Only those who have real email accounts pass the
quoted material on without extra effort. I find this a frustration and
I think it is a bad idea. With the way licensing has already been
simplified, anyone with a technician license can easily just go get a
General.
From: Gary
Reply-To:
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:55:14 -
To:
Subject: [digitalradio] Techs on HF digital
I thought I'd run something u
Look on the bottom of the unit. If it had factory installed windows, the
original license and key should be affixed to the unit.
Dave wrote:
>Does anyone have a key for Windows 98 from an UNUSED installation?
>
>My old laptop came with Win98, and thought I would resurrect it for use on
>digit
I use rigexpert and it works well. The interface to the computer is USB.
Clif wrote:
> I am contemplating getting into the digital end of ham radio. I have
> been playing around with listening a little when the band allows. I
> have been using Ham Radio Deluxe on a Pentium with Win XP and a
> Ke
pression 4
> kHz from the carrier under any circumstances. There could be an exception for
> older AM transmitters or transmitters under 10W PEP. What is really needed is
> a rule that says 3rd order IMD must be at least 30 dB down.
>
> 73,
>
> John
> KD6OZH
>
>
Modern filters that have been used in real equipment since the 80s can
be -1 db at 3100 and down 25 db at 3.5 k with negligible overshoot and
ripple in the 10ths of a DB. Chebyshev filters are not really the filter
of choice for this, elliptic tilers with some custom tweaks are a better
choice.
ecify the bandwidth of a 6 kHz crystal filter
> at the -3 dB points and the tolerance is often -0% / +25%. AM and phasing SSB
> transmitters have audio low-pass filters that roll off at 30-42 dB per
> octave.
>
> 73,
>
> John
> KD6OZH
>
> - Origina
I would almost agree except for the 8 kHz wideband mode. That can easily
be 6 kHz and accommodate AM as used in HF communications. A wider
bandwidth just opens the door to more problems. I will file my comments
based on yours except I will suggest a maximum of 6 kilohertz.
John B. Stephensen w
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>If you go to the SCS website, it clearly states that PACTORIII is
>>designed for commercial operation, especially maritime. They then
>
> have a
>
>>tanned
If you go to the SCS website, it clearly states that PACTORIII is
designed for commercial operation, especially maritime. They then have a
tanned rich German guy on the website giving a testimonial how the
system works from his yacht. If people want to tie up marine frequencies
with such a low
The problem with PACTOR III is that it is downward compatible with
narrower modes PACTOR AND PACTOR II. The 500 kHz mode is compatible
with narrow modes in the CW sections. The wide mode is only compatible
with SSB. If you look at the SCS website, they promote PACTOR III as a
commercial mode m
cations than is done presently. The requires getting
> towers, beams, and perhaps SSB in place.
>
>
> Rud Merriam K5RUD
> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> http://TheHamNetwork.net
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAI
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> First of all not many can afford a satellite phone, which is also not
> amateur radio. A satellite phone plus connection fees are far more
> expensive than a PACTOR MODEM. Second many do not even have the luxury
> of a UHF link, nor are they near a town, so HF is playing a v
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> Sometimes through the night
> when I cannot access any European PACTOR PMBOS because I do not have a
> decent 80 meters antenna, I can connect to PMBOs in Canada or USA on
> 30 or 40 meters. How about that?
If it uses more than 500 hertz bandwidth it is not something I want
True, but it also depends on what the emergency is. Since you are in a
rural area you most likely have completely different needs. There are
many different modes possible. I think it is important to remember that
this thread started with discussion of automated robotic systems that
transmit wit
modes other than voice
> or CW.
>
>
> Rud Merriam K5RUD
> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> http://TheHamNetwork.net
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of W2XJ
> Sent: Wedn
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> What about the Radio Hams that do not have the luxury of 100 meg
> Internet that YOU ENJOY, or don't even have a 56k dial-up connection?
> What about the ones who travel the world in a boat, in an RV, the ones
> that are on holiday away from home? What about the ones who tra
There are plenty of digital modes that do not interfere. At the end of
the day everything boils down to signal to noise and bandwidth. If a
signal is really weak, it will have to be received in a narrow
bandwidth. The narrower the bandwidth, the slower the transfer of
information. At HF, digita
I think the whole thing is pointless. Why to I want to try to send email
via a slow speed serial stream when I have 100 meg Internet on the
computer next to the rig? I firmly believe that these systems are too
organized to be dependable in an emergency. That is when you loose a lot
of infrastru
; had no other communication modes available.
>
>
>
> Maybe there is a better way than to abolish higher bandwidth digital in the
> HF spectrum. How about further band segment segregation?
>
>
>
> My $0.02
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
A little over the top?
expeditionradio wrote:
> First FCC Came for the PACTOR3,
> and I did not speak out
> because I was not a PACTOR operator.
>
> Then FCC came for RTTY,
> and I did not speak out
> because I was not an RTTY op.
>
> Then FCC came for the PSK,
> and I did not speak out
> be
Written in great spin mister style. I disagree with the unsubstantiated
claims made in this and other posts by Bonnie. I participate in various
digital modes but I know that they will not be a major factor in a true
emergency. Anyone who uses that ruse is just playing politics.
expeditionra
The Cw segments should not be subverted for questionable digital modes
that are really last century's news.
Phil Barnett wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:30:34 am W2XJ wrote:
>
>
>>I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band
>&
Fine, I agree lets kill them all. At the end of the day only narrow band
modes will work in a dire emergency.
expeditionradio wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W2XJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower ba
I agree. anytime a wideband mode is interfering with narrower band
modes, there must be an investigation.
Phil Barnett wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 December 2007 03:02:37 am expeditionradio wrote:
>
>>>an attempt to prevent the
>>>destruction of ham radio as we know it.
>>
>>The same thing was said
I think you should cite a creditable reference unless you can prove that
you were operating spark in the early 1900s.
expeditionradio wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Barry Garratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>HUH!
>>
>>They didn't want CW!
>>What mode were the spark gap op
In the CW portion of our bands nothing that is more than 500 hertz
bandwidth should be allowed. Any kind of automatic transmission should
be prohibited below 28 MHz. The petition is an attempt to prevent the
destruction of ham radio as we know it.
expeditionradio wrote:
>>Mark WD4ELG wrote:
>
I will be responding in support of the petition. I do not believe these
digital modes will be effective in a true national emergency. I do
believe that they use a disproportionate amount of bandwidth for no real
advantage. Email at less than 2400 baud is not cutting edge technology.
In a real n
. Maybe both? Maybe the developers who will be coming up with a
> Windows version of flarq could consider other modulation waveforms?
>
> - how effective will 2 meter SSB work between mobiles and base stations
> using voice and digital modes compared to HF NVIS operation. Even with
>
I think anything that depends on interconnected infrastructure is
vulnerable in an emergency. In a real emergency SSB AM FM and CW are the
only viable modes that you know will work. Everyone likes to tout
emergencies and homeland security to support whatever position they wish
to champion. Whe
For us Amateurs there is 2390 to 2400 which is outside the ISM band. At
5.8 we have frequencies above and below as well as in the ISM band.
keyesbob wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>If you want higher speeds, isn't it going to be much more pract
Packet is kind of pointless these days. You can sit in the shack and
work other modes while sending email much faster over the Internet. On
HF I think modes like PSK 31 are much more interesting in that you can
take advantage of direct communications in a narrow bandwidth. VHF and
UHF are somew
Yes it is
Steinar Aanesland wrote:
> Is this the IVOX system:?
>
> http://downloads.pf.itd.nrl.navy.mil/ivox/
>
> LA5VNA Steinar
>
>
>
>
> W2XJ skrev:
>
>>
>>Very low bitrate algorithms exist now. There are a few that operate from
>>20
Very low bitrate algorithms exist now. There are a few that operate from
200 bps to 600 bps. The Navy has software called IVOX that gets in this
range. So you could transmit 16 QAM and hit the 100 HZ goal. The bigger
problem would be getting it to survive propagation and survive receiver
filte
The problem is that if this is a store and forward repeater you will
accumulate too much time delay.
Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote:
> Here is a related idea: We have seen with JT65a that sometimes when we
> think the band is closed, it is just very poor instead. W1AW, which one
> can sometimes h
MFJ sells a MFJ-662 pocket repeater for $79.95. Basically it is a digital store
and forward box that records up to 32 seconds of audio and then re transmits it
once the receiver is squelched or after the 32 seconds. They claim it works
with
any rig including HTs and is legal in any band but tha
74 matches
Mail list logo
