Well according to the official RAC bandplan:
40M - bandwidth 6 kHz
7.000 7.035 CW
7.035 7.050 Digital
7.040 7.050 Intnl packet
7.050 7.100 SSB
7.100 7.120 Packet R# 2
7.120 7.150 CW
7.150 7.300 SSB +
So that's where the problem lies. It would be nice to have co-existin
Skip
You bring up very good points.
I for one would really would like to see a world wide band plan
of CW - PHONE as well as DIGITAL all in the same part of the band.
I just have got feed up with trying to have a digital QSO on 40
while on the same freq some VE is calling CQ on phone.
At some po
That's true Skip, it is historical, its a leftover. How many people have we
heard in the last 10 years in Europe, with such a vitally important message,
that when conditions are too poor to continue to use telephony they conclude by
using Morse code ? Er one maybe ?
Mel G0GQK
On 9/1/2010 5:19 PM, raf3151019 wrote:
And the same common sense attitude which occurs in Canada is also
applied to the use of frequencies in the UK. There are sections of the
bands which are agreed internationally and everybody accepts it.
Although it rarely happens I don't agree with the r
And the same common sense attitude which occurs in Canada is also applied to
the use of frequencies in the UK. There are sections of the bands which are
agreed internationally and everybody accepts it. Although it rarely happens I
don't agree with the ruling that operators of Morse code are perm
I disagree with the statement that in a regulation by bandwidth that there is
no phone band. Yes there is. In Canada we have bandwidth only restrictions. I
would no sooner transmit Pactor in the phone band than transmit SSB in the CW
band. Why? Its because commonsense prevails most of the time a
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "k4cjx" wrote:
>
>
> Amazing that one thinks that 1 percent can cause any type of difference,
> anywhere, especially on the Phone bands. Regulation by bandwidth and not by
> mode seems to be working everywhere that it is allowed. under a bandwidth
> re
Sorry Howard
But this brain dead thinking (or lack of it) about pactor
that some seen to have just burns me the wrong way.
I guess if I had a sound card in the shack computer I could
"blast" back every time I get QRM'ed by some other mode also.
Speaking of, where have you been hiding your pacto
Thank you, John, Sir.
Howard W6IDS
Richmond, IN EM79NV
- Original Message -
From: "John Becker"
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 10:11 PM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
> Me just thinking out loud..
>
> Would we be talking abou
Me just thinking out loud..
Would we be talking about this if one could operate Pactor 2 or 3
on a 15 buck sound card from any wal*mart?
I think not.
I for one can run all 3 pactor modes having the modem.
(by putting out the cash for the thing in the first place)
and enjoy the many QSO's th
>>>AA6YQ comments below
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of John B. Stephensen
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 4:29 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better
The ARRL response was that the final proposal retained the existing automatic
subands.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
>>>When that 1 percent deploys unattended stations that transmit without
first checking to see if the frequency is in use, they can create havoc far
out o
On 8/29/2010 2:12 PM, k4cjx wrote:
BTW, it wasn't "winlink" that wanted anything, it was the ARRL who
wrote the proposal. There were flaws in it, but it was headed in the
proper direction. it will return as we move toward a digital future.
Steve, k4cjx, aaa9ac
Let's not try to distort hist
>>>AA6YQ comments below
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of k4cjx
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 2:12 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Amazing that o
Amazing that one thinks that 1 percent can cause any type of difference,
anywhere, especially on the Phone bands. Regulation by bandwidth and not by
mode seems to be working everywhere that it is allowed. under a bandwidth
regulatory environment, there is no "phone band."
BTW, it wasn't "winl
Marc,
Thank you for commenting; all good points. I think it would benefit
everyone if we take a closer look at all modes that are 4 to 5 times
wider than their narrow band counterparts to make sure that they
actually improve our ability to communicate over HF. I think it's
irresponsible to wa
Tony,
Thus there is no thruput advantage compared to modes wich use less bandwidth.
(and not even between the two baud rates in ROS)
So: ROS 2250Hz mode is too wide for the crowded bands we already have. Or:
operating ROS is contradictory to common HAM radio operating practice. Or: ROS
is like
On 8/5/2010 12:32 PM, pd4u_dares wrote:
>
> > > While the mode performs well over HF, the additional bandwidth
> doesn't
> > > appear to have any throughput advantage over other modes that use
> less
> > > spectrum. In fact, path simulations indicate that there is no
> difference
> > > in throug
> > While the mode performs well over HF, the additional bandwidth doesn't
> > appear to have any throughput advantage over other modes that use less
> > spectrum. In fact, path simulations indicate that there is no difference
> > in throughput between ROS 500/16 and ROS 2250/16.
SIC
Marc,
Thanks 4 ur comment Rein!
NOBODY
Comments in text
_
Von: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von pd4u_dares
Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Juli 2010 15:26
An: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v 4.8.X not spamming cluster - NOT
--- In digitalradio
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Siegfried Jackstien"
wrote:
>
> Marc . i agree that jose is as dummy . if you see his behaviour in some
> situations
>
> I do not wanna defend him (AS I DO NOT LIKE HIDDEN FUNCTIONS TOO)
>
> I just like the new mode as it works so well
>
> I just like ex
Marc . i agree that jose is as dummy . if you see his behaviour in some
situations
I do not wanna defend him (AS I DO NOT LIKE HIDDEN FUNCTIONS TOO)
I just like the new mode as it works so well
I just like experimenting with new "toys"
That's all
Sure it would be way easier if he had a lis and
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Siegfried Jackstien"
wrote:
>
> 3 qrg on 20 . yes it is the most used dx band ..
So???
SSTV has been around since 1958 and since then the number of users has grown
dramatically, but they only use one calling frequency on 20m. More users imply
more pat
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Siegfried Jackstien"
wrote:
> 3 qrg on 20 . yes it is the most used dx band .. How many phone channels of
> 3khz ???
None in the wideband digimode section!
None continously on top of packet/pactor/winmor
> You argue about the bandwith . as wide as a phon
You forgot that there is not only a silencer but also the safety pin .. And
the user guide that says do not hold that gun in the direction of any human
. if it is not you mother in law .. grin
;)
la5vna Steinar
On 25.07.2010 15:34, pd4u_dares wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Siegfried Jackstien"
> wrote:
>> Now newest version 484 sends correct qrg even if you use no cat
>> Thanks jose
>> Dg9bfc
>> sigi
>>
> the gun with the silencer on it now shoots on target... wh
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Siegfried Jackstien"
wrote:
>
> Now newest version 484 sends correct qrg even if you use no cat
> Thanks jose
> Dg9bfc
> sigi
>
the gun with the silencer on it now shoots on target... what a news...
it's hard coded banned calls list, it's three calling frequencies on 20m,
it's inferior [to contestia] wide band mode, it's auto spotting on DX
clusters).
"hall of shame" does not exist anymore (as I know)
3 qrg on 20 . yes it is the most used dx band .. How many phone channels of
3khz ???
Funny you mention - Paper - CHINA - is using ros on 14 meg now .. what ever
next ?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "pd4u_dares" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Siegfried Jackstien"
> wrote:
> >
> > A gun can be a weapon to kill . or just a sport gun .. for precise
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Siegfried Jackstien"
wrote:
>
> A gun can be a weapon to kill . or just a sport gun .. for precisely making
> a hole in a paper some ten feet away
>
For making holes in paper we have perforators. For making holes in people we
have guns. Jose Nieto-Ros ha
A gun can be a weapon to kill . or just a sport gun .. for precisely making
a hole in a paper some ten feet away
So it depends on for what you use that gun
I like the sportive way .
See how far I can go with a few watts on a simple antenna
But others might use it for :how many winmore stations
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie, VK3AMA"
> At least some progress has been made.
>
Only in a relative sense...
I see the current version of ROS as a gun with a silencer on it. It makes less
noise, which might be called progress, but it doesn't make the gun less
destructive. So
Hi Steinar,
Mr Ros has a habit of rolling out new versions without updating the
version number. So my non working v4.8.2 may have been different to
yours. Currently v4.8.3 has been updated 3 times today (they way to tell
is that the Medifire Link where the files are hosted changes every-time
h
Hi Laurie
I have been running the latest version of ROS in a sandbox monitoring
its network behavior with the software "SmartSniff" from Nirsoft
http://www.nirsoft.net over a period of 2 hours.
ROS was constantly sending information to PSKReporter , but never to the
Cluster.
But I believe you
Hi Steinar,
Unfortunately, v4.8.2 of ROS still spams the DX Cluster with auto-spots.
Only way to effectively stop is block adif.exe at the firewall.
ROS Auto-Spots too Cluster currently represent 98% of all ROS Cluster spots,
with ROS representing 6.2% of all Cluster spots (7 day period).
As f
Check out the psk-reporter live map, now showing ros
http://pskreporter.info/pskmap.html
Its on the web site now
http://rosmodem.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/ros-and-psk-reporter/
G .
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> It seems that the latest
contents of this e-mail or any documents attached hereto is
prohibited.
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Ted Bear
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:22 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
I sure am glad I grew up! MAN! Get a life!
From: Ted Bear
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 3:21:45 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Holy Moly.. When you guys going to drop the ROS subject and get back to
WOMEN ?!
Garrett / AA0OI
From: Ted Bear
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 2:21:45 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Holy Moly.. When you guys going to drop the ROS subject and get back to
interesting
t: Tue, July 20, 2010 8:43:53 AM
> Subject: AW: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
>
> Â
> And not to start another argument, but incase you haven't noticed we've lost
> control of our "Government" and that includes the FCC
> Â
> Snipâ¦â¦
> Â
I wasn't alway this way,, and someday we'll have to take it back !!
Garrett / AA0OI
From: Siegfried Jackstien
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 8:43:53 AM
Subject: AW: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
No eveyone is Leonardo DaVinchi, or me !
Garrett / AA0OI
From: Siegfried Jackstien
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 5:45:34 AM
Subject: AW: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
The inventor is an idiot … not cause he
o
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 3:34:31 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY wrote:
>
> > Just use common sense..
> Garrett / AA0OI
>
>
> "Common sense" says follow the reg
And not to start another argument, but incase you haven't noticed we've lost
control of our "Government" and that includes the FCC
Snip..
Is there ANY country in the world where the people have control over their
government???
Where can I get a flight ticket to there??
Just kidding
_
From: James Hall
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 10:17:08 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Apparently it's perfectly fine to break the rules because what the big bad
"government" doesn't know won't hur
SO ! that whats in my swimming pool.. I'll have to add more chlorine..
Garrett / AA0OI
From: Dave AA6YQ
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 9:58:44 PM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Enough of
Julian,
For example, five years ago, Winlink attempted to get the FCC to allow
then to use Pactor-III ALL OVER the phone bands, with the argument that
the bandwidth was no greater than a phone signal.
Do you think that should have been allowed for the benefit of that 1% of
the US ham populat
Who is to decide what is harmful to the general population or not - the
individual looking out for himself, or the public looking out for
everyone (in the form of a republic) including that individual?
73, Skip KH6TY
On 7/20/2010 4:34 AM, g4ilo wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
<
Julian,
This regulation was made years ago and just covers all "spread
spectrum". In the FCC's opinion, ROS is spread spectrum, both by
description by the author and lab analysis. So, they had no choice but
to uphold the current ruling.
If someone wants to redefine spread spectrum on HF as h
The inventor is an idiot . not cause he invented the mode nor cause he said
it is spread spectrum
Bur because he still hold on the software that does send the false
autogenerated spots
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY wrote:
>
> > Just use common sense..
> Garrett / AA0OI
>
>
> "Common sense" says follow the regulations, because they were made for
> the benefit of everyone, and not just for what a few who would like to
> do what they wish without regard for othe
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KH6TY wrote:
>
> I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread
> spectrum above 222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!). A single spread
> spectrum signal on HF may go unnoticed by most stations, but what
> happens if 100 (in range) are o
>
*To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM
*Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett?
John, W0JAB
At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote:
>Wha
he right way is to campaign to get the rules you don't like changed, and
> until you do, follow them.
>
>Jim - K6JM
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* KH6TY
> *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 5:38 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [digita
s.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of W2XJ
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 10:10 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Skip if you call this a regulation, I agree with Garret. It is a misguided
one and a victim of unintended consequ
>>
>> From: KH6TY <mailto:kh...@comcast.net>
>>
>> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>>
>> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:38 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>> (the government told Wilbur and Orville that they were "forbidden" to fly)
>>
>> I'm sure everyone drives the speed limit too..
>>
>> Just use common sense..
>>
>>
>> Garrett / AA0OI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>&g
oooh kaay
;-)
ke4mz
- Original Message -
From: "AA0OI"
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 7:32:31 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
no,but if I did ,, no one except nit pickers would care.
Garre
ginal Message -
From: KH6TY
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
I think there are valid reasons for the FCC only allowing spread spectrum
above 222 Mhz (where there is plenty of room!)
quot;
*To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM
*Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett?
John, W0JAB
At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote:
>What is absurd is that its a fight in the first plac
sorry, your not worth answering..
and check back about 2 weeks ago when I said, "..Let it die"
Garrett / AA0OI
From: Jeff Moore
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:02:56 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger
that they were "forbidden" to fly)
I'm sure everyone drives the speed limit too..
Just use common sense..
Garrett / AA0OI
From: "John Becker, WØJAB"
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:07 PM
Subject: Re: [di
pse speak clearly into your computer
have you ever operated in a digital mode on hf with a wider bandwidth
than a voice signal?
- Original Message -
From: "AA0OI"
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:48:34 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS ba
no,but if I did ,, no one except nit pickers would care.
Garrett / AA0OI
From: "bg...@comcast.net"
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 7:12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
pse speak cl
pse speak clearly into your computer
have you ever operated in a digital mode on hf with a wider bandwidth than a
voice signal?
- Original Message -
From: "AA0OI"
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:48:34 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradi
All the QRM makers operating on three fixed frequencies, what a Lovely
Thought
la5vna Steinar
On 18.07.2010 16:29, g4ilo wrote:
> And the hundreds of people who take part in the major RTTY contests
would all operate on three fixed frequencies how, exactly?
>
> Julian, G4ILO
>
> --- In digita
The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett?
John, W0JAB
At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote:
>What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back
>up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or
>death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all alo
me sentence needs to
move to Iraq.. see if they agree with you !
Garrett / AA0OI
From: Jeff Moore
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back
> From: Jeff Moore
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
>
> Â
> 
> A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to
_
From: Jeff Moore
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:30:15 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
A smart man picks his fights carefully. Comparing this discussion to the fight
for our freedom is absurd.
Jeff --
AA0OI
From: g4ilo
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Beagley wrote:
>
>
> But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the
&
weren't always like this)
Garrett / AA0OI
From: g4ilo
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:51:38 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Beagley wrote:
>
>
> B
19, 2010 12:32:53 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
The definition given although likely accurate is not relevent to the discussion
because it's NOT the definition used by the FCC.
Although none of us (US hams) are going to be deported to Siberia (unless
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Beagley wrote:
>
>
> But the FCC has already written -- according to a document I found the
> other day but can't be bothered to look for again now -- words to the
> effect that "the inventor says it's spread spectrum, and he should know
> what it is
On 07/19/10 11:48 am, g4ilo wrote:
>> Your definition might be called what "good SS" is and the way ROS does SS
>> might be called what "bad SS" is. But how wide is PSK31? Is ROS wider? So
>> ROS is wider than needed to convey intelligence.
>
> So is RTTY. But it isn't SS.
>
>> Your point is w
Yes
Its ok for us over this side to comment .. looks like the technical
argument is a non starter as the ss words are as wide as a barn door and
you have to pass by the 'cross' road .. or is that by pass ...
As far as I can see it will need a petition to request that ALL
g4ilo writes:
>
> But why are you all so worked up over this? It is the USA not
> Soviet Russia, you aren't going to end up in Siberia are you?
The late J Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI, used to exile FBI agents
he disliked to Alaska, which was as close to Siberia as he could send
the
The definition given although likely accurate is not relevent to the discussion
because it's NOT the definition used by the FCC.
Although none of us (US hams) are going to be deported to Siberia (unless
there's some sort of agreement between the US and USSR that I'm not aware of),
we CAN be fin
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "J. Moen" wrote:
>
> Your definition might be called what "good SS" is and the way ROS does SS
> might be called what "bad SS" is. But how wide is PSK31? Is ROS wider? So
> ROS is wider than needed to convey intelligence.
So is RTTY. But it isn't SS.
>
since I live
there) focus on the mechanism instead of the bandwidth.
Your point is well taken, but not relevant to people under the FCC's
jurisdiction.
Jim - K6JM
- Original Message -
From: jsavitsky
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 2:39 A
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Beagley wrote:
>
> It seems to me that the developer of the mode may have cooked his own
> goose: he declared it to be a spread-spectrum mode, and spread-spectrum
> is mot legal on HF in the USA.
In spite of what author claims, ROS is not a sp
And the hundreds of people who take part in the major RTTY contests would all
operate on three fixed frequencies how, exactly?
Julian, G4ILO
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland wrote:
>
>
> Well, "old" modes like rtty has its charm, but as the ultimate contest
> mode it make
At 08:19 AM 7/18/2010, you wrote:
>I dare say that if someone offered me one, I would probably take it, just for
>the noise and the stink. I would charge admission. Mine had lots of roll
>paper, paper tape etc,. It worked FB.
Now that an Idea for income since I have 3 of them. (1, 28 RO & 2, 2
: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta
Same here , my first exposure was with the old mechanical clunkers. The paper
tape, chad, oil and the smells.. they had it all, hihi
73 Buddy WB4M
- Original Message -
From: Rudy Benner
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010
: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta
My first exposure to RTTY was an old genuine teletype machine with a crummy
interface. It was heavy, made a lot of noise, smelled great and I should never
have gotten rid of it.
As for CW, I learned it well enough to pass the exam. I used it only for MS
in kanuckistan
From: J. Moen
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 6:51 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta
I know this is out of fashion, but I really like PSK31, for its narrow
bandwidth and effectiveness with low power. It was the first mode I
y, July 17, 2010 9:10 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta
Wow Steinar. This really tells the true story about your (and mine) love for
RTTY (stoneage/museum,power wasting,polluting KW) KAANTEST MODE. TTY was
created for cables, not radio, I believe. Hi.
la7um Finn
--- In di
Wow Steinar. This really tells the true story about your (and mine) love for
RTTY (stoneage/museum,power wasting,polluting KW) KAANTEST MODE. TTY was
created for cables, not radio, I believe. Hi.
la7um Finn
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steinar Aanesland wrote:
>
>
> Despite the mass
spread-spectrum > is mot legal on HF in the USA
That is the problem .''in the usa''.. some Clark in a office messed things up
good style .. for him she or it , SS = big bandwidth , so shove it over 220
meg .
Problem is , other popular modes use similar systems , didn't chirp get taken
do
On 07/15/10 01:54 pm, "John Becker, WØJAB" wrote:
> I wonder where ROS would be today if someone had been
> truthful about it the first place?
>
> That little game of banning some from using it (for unknown reasons)
> was just about it for me.
I received a few ROS transmissions within a week or t
I wonder where ROS would be today if someone had been
truthful about it the first place?
That little game of banning some from using it (for unknown reasons)
was just about it for me.
John, W0JAB
Thay think its all over .. it is now (last uk world cup win)
This was going to be one of the headlines of the GB2RS news service on
Sunday 18
note the 'making waves' very coy :)
Developer pulls plug on ROS digimode
New digital mode ROS has been making waves around the wor
No . just block adif exe in a firewall and everything is fine
You can use the soft with or without email but without spotting is only
possible when using a firewall
The soft does not spot later . think you have no inet at home today.
tomorrow you get inet . if now the soft would spot later there
t prohibition of all forms of SS) makes sense. But, right
now at least, that's the rule in the US.
Jim - K6JM
- Original Message -
From: "John Becker, WØJAB"
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:40 AM
Subject: RE: [digitalradio]
If one was to just disconnect from the net would the program
later try to post?
It seems that this is the main concern of many?
John, W0JAB
EM49lk
13, 2010 6:04 AM
>To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS
>
>Why hasn't this subject died, like the mode itself? The developer has said he
>won't develop it any more, so ROS (the mode) is dead.
>
>The fact that someone wants to take over a website
>>someone else will
eventually develop an alternative, hopefully in an open and non-confrontational
manner.<<
Thats the whole point .. no one will, as no one can (in the usa) use it
under the catch 220 clause .. even the established ss modes cannot be used
now , after this fiasco ,
Hi Julian,
>Why hasn't this subject died, like the mode itself? The developer has said he
>won't develop it any more, so ROS (the mode) is dead.
>
>The fact that someone wants to take over a website makes no difference unless
>the source code for the mode is also handed over so that development
Why hasn't this subject died, like the mode itself? The developer has said he
won't develop it any more, so ROS (the mode) is dead.
The fact that someone wants to take over a website makes no difference unless
the source code for the mode is also handed over so that development can also
continu
1 - 100 of 279 matches
Mail list logo
