Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS is back bigger and better !!!

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS is back bigger and better !!!

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

>>>AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 4:29 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

>>>AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of k4cjx Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 2:12 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better ! Amazing that one thinks

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS HF Path Simulations

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS HF Path Simulations

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ros clusterspots

;) 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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v 4.8.X not spamming cluster - NOT

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v 4.8.X not spamming cluster - NOT

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

RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

Hi Ted: Concur, which is why I simply created the internal email filter with the rule, scan any msg in the inbox for the word ros, and place in the Junk Mail folder for disposal along with the offers for blonds, diplomas from MIT, and “enhancements”. 73 Les Lester B Veenstra M

Re: [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 i

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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 DIGI

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

Just use the mode,,like someone else wrote on here,,,if it is SS then they will probably write you a nice letter and ask you to stop ( I got a hundred dollar bill says you never hear from them). The FCC has bigger problems to deal with, like where there next bribe is coming from, or who to purch

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

_ 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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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 <

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

> *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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

>> >> 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 ! >> >> >> >

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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!)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS vs RTTY

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

The hell with the rules and law, right Garrett? John, W0JAB At 05:48 PM 7/19/2010, you wrote: >What is absurd is that its a fight in the first place.. do you ever just back >up and look at what is being said?? Your all acting like this is life or >death..ITS NOT..I have been using it all alo

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

_ 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  -- 

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 -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: AA0OI Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all j

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

Julian: I apologize for my county men,, forgive them for they know not what they ARE TALKING about. If they would all just shut up and use it,, NO ONE,, including the Federal Communist Committee, would even care..  Lately my country men seem to like to start wars that we can not win.. (we weren'

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

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 there's some sort of agreement between the US and USSR that I'm not aware of), we CAN be fin

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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. What's sad is that one country's regulations (and they affect me since I live there) focus on

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta

: [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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta

: [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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS v4.7.4 Beta

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

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 ever did where I could have a QSO with a signal burried by the noise. I like some of the newer modes, and am happy to see the popularity of Olivia and Cont

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS

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]

RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS

Julian If Jose does not fix the generation of these spam messages, the method will disappear. If he fixes it, seems unlikely, the people who are using it now, will keep on using it and it will grow. I just wonder how many here in this group actually have used ROS, or, are able to receive with it

RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Developer will continue to auto-spot despite complaints

BTW guys, if you have the technical skill to do so, I'd recommend setting up a virtual machine to test any questionable material out in. Virtualbox is one free VM, qemu is another. Virtualbox is a lot easier to transfer files into. You can set aside a file for a virtual hard drive, install a differ

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS are sending data from your PC - banned call list

Marc I am out of the A, B and C period. Actually there was no C in 1955 Did not know PD4 was a novice class prefix, but so be it. Have to look at VERON or VRZA web sites for clasees . 2*1 calls are extra's here. But the question was about using 2.5 kHz BW at 14.103! I though you were making the

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS are sending data from your PC - banned call list

Marc, Always like to learn more about think I do not understand. Apart from causing QRM on a occupied frequency ( QRL? ), you with your PD4 call are allowed to make a contact with SSB or even AM at 14.003. are you not? I am talking legally here. there might be new EU rules gentleman's agreement

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS are sending data from your PC - banned call list

"even Jose would understand it to be insane to have programs distributed with built-in banned lists." Well, maybe he removed it, but it was definitely there at one timeso maybe it was temporary insanity? Dave K3DCW On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Rein A wrote: > > > > > Dave. > > I trie

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS are sending data from your PC - banned call list

So, did you actually transmit using another op's call sign? Or, did you just plug them in and say that it works? As I recall, the non-grata ops could enter their calls during setup but it would not transmit. So, unless G4ILO, K5OKC, N1SZ or I (or other banned ops) actually decide to try to transm

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS are sending data from your PC

What about beating dead horses here?? 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- >From: Alan >Sent: Jul 9, 2010 5:29 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS are sending data from your PC > > > >Lets beat the dead horse some more...Seriously though...Jose can put me on

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS are sending data from your PC

Hi Dave, Thanks. From here you come over as a thoughtful person and you seem to be following where this is going. I am not happy that I can not use ROS modem. This is a fact. The way the ruling came over via the ARRL is mot correct ( IMHO ) I have been trying to discuss this here and at other

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS are sending data from your PC

At 06:18 PM 7/8/2010, you wrote: >Hi John, > > >That IP address is probably a cluster in Sweden that was added by Jose to the >list of clusters to be served by ROS users. >Amateur radio is a global hobby. > >73 Rein W6SZ Oh I agree about the being "global" but I would much rather do it myself.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS on 40 meters

At 04:04 PM 7/6/2010, you wrote in part: >UH OH.now I've done it. Bet I won't ever get on their forum, much less >be able >to use ROS any time soon I'm down in the dingy cellar now with >the >likes of John W0JAB! > >Howard W6IDS >Richmond, IN EM79NV Come on down. The beer is cold and th

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS on 40 meters

At 09:46 AM 7/7/2010, you wrote: >--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Siegfried Jackstien" > wrote: ><..> >> Ros is programmed for low power qrppp experiments . with a few watt and a >> groundplane for a 16000 km path .. But there are users thinking more power >> is better . and using ros the

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS on 40 meters

The 14.105 packet group has been there a long time, but all I ever hear there now is splatter from ROS. If jose were a ham and had a better understanding of the gentlemen's agreement on bandplans, a lot of his inconvenience of having to reassign frequencies could have been avoided. Oops, off th

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS on 40 meters

WHO/WHAT is claiming 14.103 - 14.115? The author? The Hams who seem to be intrigued with ROS? If there's an apparent acceptance of the claimed freq spread, then it's not the author only who's in need of a good trouncing. UH OH.now I've done it. Bet I won't ever get on their forum, much l

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS on 40 meters

is welcome though to use his trash bin 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- >From: Steinar Aanesland >Sent: Jul 6, 2010 1:18 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS on 40 meters > > >It is a shame . There is only one thing t

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS on 40 meters

It is a shame . There is only one thing to do -take back these frequencies by running other modes when they are free 73 de la5vna Steinar On 06.07.2010 18:08, pd4u_dares wrote: > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Siegfried Jackstien" > wrote: > >> If you download and installed the n

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP

Dave wrote: > > > Spread spectrum has no bandwidth definition, it is a transmission > technique plain and simple. This is a nuance, but an important technical one: There is a "spreading ratio" definition in SS that is one of the formal identifiers of spread spectrum vs other modulation technique

RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP

Without intending to reopen the argument about spread spectrum, the FCC has spoken about the legality of the mode. A few US hams will argue that it isn't spread spectrum since it isn't any wider than a SSB channel. Spread spectrum has no bandwidth definition, it is a transmission technique plain a

RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP

Exactly, Skip. Well put. Dave Real radio bounces off the sky _ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of KH6TY Sent: Wednesday, 02 June, 2010 17:38 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP

I agree with Rein's concern. Given the actions of the author in the past, and the fact that he is not even part of the amateur radio community, I'd be very hesitant to use that mode in a program, not know knowing what other malicious code might be embedded in the ROS software. Except for the

RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS MODEM OFFICIAL GROUP

Rein, There are several (around a dozen I think) amateur operators that are "prohibited" from using ROS by having their call signs hard-coded into a persona-non-grata listing in ROS. I am proud to be one of those ops. This has been extensively documented on QRZ in the following thread:

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS operating frequencies on 20m

On 03/04/2010 09:10 PM, pd4u_dares wrote: > All wouldn't have happened if it was not claimed by some that ROS is illegaal > in the US. Since there is no official publication on this by the FCC, ROS is > neither legal nor illegal. So the first claim by some users of ROS was in > error. Jose's su

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS operating frequencies on 20m

On 03/04/2010 07:44 AM, g4ilo wrote: > I thought you were in Region 2. I have the Region 2 band plan in front of me > right off the IARU site and it definitely says All Modes in all of the > sections right up to 14.350. I don't see any division at 14.150 at all. In > any case, I don't think you'

RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Soundcard select .. missing tx option for usb card

Did you delete the ROS.ini File in the Windows directoty? -Original Message- From: "graham787" To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: 3/5/10 6:37 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Soundcard select .. missing tx option for usb card Alan . are 'we' the only stns with this problem

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS operating frequencies on 20m

OMG I'm not that technically minded but isn't there a compromise? I seem to be going from one side to the other I know, but Cant everyone use ROS at a specific place without disturbing the beacon network and olivia. After all we have sstv way within the 20m band at 14 230 surely if this had b

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS operating frequencies on 20m

Julian, the problem is that the FCC regulations we live under are often more strict than the IARU bandplans. Under those regulations, RTTY/Data stops at 14.150. Furthermore, the IARU band plans are only "recommendations" for member organizations. The FCC regulations are "laws" we MUST follow.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Soundcard select .. missing tx option for usb card

Click on close. That has stored the Options for me.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Soundcard select .. missing tx option for usb card (Signalink)

Well the progran found my USB Singalink interface. But I have it set the USB as my defualt interface, I tryed to remove to soundcard from the PC and some of the other digital programs needed it in the PC, with out the soundcard the WAVE output was gone, so I had to reinstall the card even thou I

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Soundcard select .. missing tx option for usb card

try download v2.2.2 De: wa4sca Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,3 marzo, 2010 01:33 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Soundcard select .. missing tx option for usb card   Guessing you have a SignaLink USB card? I found, or better didn't find, the

RE: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Soundcard select .. missing tx option for usb card

2.2.2 is out and it works well for me. De : digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] De la part de wa4sca Envoyé : 2 mars 2010 19:34 À : digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Objet : [digitalradio] Re: ROS Soundcard select .. missing tx option for usb card Guessing you

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS discussion - will it ever end

Gee-whillikers! Why don't you folks just filter on the keyword in the subject and direct all hits to another folder? Most of the posts today have been on the subject of "ROS discussion - will it ", which certainly has absolutely nothing to do with digital communications. 73, LEE, AA5J

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS carrier pattern when idle

Mike, I have uploaded the comparison you requested for ROS (16 baud this time for better comparison overall) compared to CHIP64, both idling: http://home.comcast.net/~hteller/ROS16vsChip64.jpg It is hard to see what happens when you send data in CHIP64 as the signal looks a lot like noise, b

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response

dj@ yahoo.es>   >  >To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com   >  >Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 01:02  UTC >  >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC  request and response >  > >    >  > >  > >That is a Spread

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response

al of restrictions that they beleive favor their group. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: jose alberto nieto ros To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 01:02 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response That

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response

That is a Spread Spectrum in all his expression and ¿Chip64 is legal?. Then what are we discuss? De: silversmj Para: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Enviado: mié,24 febrero, 2010 01:46 Asunto: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response   Greetings All,

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS . FCC request and response

silversmj wrote: > I have played with the earlier versions in RX and found it fun and > interesting, but 2250Hz wide BW in the CW portions of the Bands is a little > much. RTTY Tests are rough enough. > > As was mentioned before by an individual, it is easy for the for > bureaucrats/authorit

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Advantage- mode ranking

jhaynesatalumni wrote: > - > > My belief is that all the RTTY is largely from contesting and DX > chasing. Those two operations have two things in common: Another aspect I had not thought of until I asked a DX'er friend of mine why they did not use PSK much for DX. His answer: "no one has found

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS Advantage- mode ranking

Not really Jim I for one never stopped using the old machines. Therefore never had to bring em back out. It's the only way I do RTTY here. John, W0JAB >Then I guess there are a few people >bringing old mechanical Teletype gear back to life and using it for >rag-chewing for old times' sake. > >Jim

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS - make it legal in USA

Not all radio sevices reference 2.201 so changing part 97 wouldn't be a major problem for the FCC. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: vinceinwaukesha To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 21:19 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS - make i

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. St

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ROS - make it legal in USA

The documentation states "the data symbols modulates a carrier whose frequency is psuedorandomly determined" and "ROS modulation scheme can be thought of as a two-step process - data modulation and frequency hopping moduation". Unfortunately, the FCC rules care about the modulation scheme rather

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

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

  1   2   >