Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY and common courtesy

Let me get this right.  You want a station to ask if the frequency is in use.  That is understandable except he will be on RTTY and you are on another sound card mode.  Many times stations do not even have the audio running now.  They are just looking at a digital display and clicking on the sig

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Repeater noise

I think cable channel "E" is one of the usual culprits on the leaky coax. At least it used be when I lived on a street with cable TV. It is all DirecTV for me now. Rick KH2DF Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2010, at 12:03 PM, "KB3FXI" wrote: > We had some very serious interference with a Pitt

Re: [digitalradio] Repeater noise

One of 2 things come to mind. 1) a very weak station trying to get into the repeater. 2) strong RF. At 11:18 AM 7/18/2010, you wrote: >[Attachment(s) from Mike Liller included below] > >Hi all, >I know this is a little of topic, but can anyone tell me what this noise is? >We are getting this

Re: [digitalradio] RTTY and common courtesy

I'm not in anyway saying that what happened was OK but after all it was a contest. Not like it happens all the time. But look at the good side. Lucky it was not a CW contest. John, W0JAB Louisiana, Missouri EM49lk Pike county for the county hunters. At 10:56 AM 7/18/2010, you wrote: >I had 3

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] ROS vs RTTY

Well, "old" modes like rtty has its charm, but as the ultimate contest mode it makes more trouble for the ham community when it is flooding the hole band, than "fix frequency" modes like ROS. The only problem with ROS is its developer, with his strange behavior. la5vna Steinar On 18.07

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

6:57 AM Subject: Re: [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

Re: [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 6:57 AM Subject: Re

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] jt65-hf on 6m ?

ell Blair (NC5O) Skype-Russell.Blair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 Digital Mode Club #03198 From: Tony To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 4:26:06 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ?   Russ, You can find out a lo

Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ?

Russ, You can find out a lot about digital mode use on 6 meters by searching DX Summit . http://www.dxsummit.fi/Search.aspx Leave the search string blank (no call sign) and set the mode to DIGI and the band to 6M. The database goes back to 1997. Tony -K2MO

Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE

require a FCC Regulatory Fee and a $5 ARRL processing fee." - Original Message - From: "John Becker, WØJAB" To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 12:42 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE At 11:52 AM 7/17/2010, you wro

Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE

At 11:52 AM 7/17/2010, you wrote: >And if you are an ARRL member, they will do it for you free. > >73 Buddy WB4M Thanks buddy, and yes, a life member Do I need to do anything or is this an "automatic" happens thing they do? John, W0JAB HOT & STICKY Missouri. Q " How do you know it's summ

Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE

Smooth as baby's bum. -- From: "Dave AA6YQ" Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 2:37 PM To: Subject: RE: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE > I just renewed my license via ULS, as described below. I had an FRN, but > no > pa

RE: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE

lf Of J. Moen Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 1:30 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE John, There is an FCC Registration Number (FRN) associated with your call. You need the FRN and a password to logon to FCC's Universal Licensing System (ULS).

Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE

The W5YI Group's process is at http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=87 You've got plenty of time, the way I read the FCC database. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Chris Robinson To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:28 AM Subje

Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ?

If it was easy, you would not be interested, right? VE3BDR From: Russell Blair Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 1:15 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ? Hi Rudy, Ya I was in the DMC contest earlyer today and will be in the NAQP as well later

Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ?

lair Hell Field #300 DRCC #55 30m Dig-group #693 Digital Mode Club #03198 From: Rudy Benner To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 11:44:32 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ?   Too bad, I don't see much of your call on t

Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE

And if you are an ARRL member, they will do it for you free. 73 Buddy WB4M What does one have to do to re-new their ticket on-line now? Been so lone I forgot http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and "Spots" all in one (resize to suit) Facebook= htt

Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ?

p and down, that's all folks !! ve3bdr in Kanuckistan. From: Russell Blair Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:42 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ? Tnx Thomas, well been on 50.290 mode of the morning and now on 50.200 and was down on 50.160

Re: [digitalradio] RE-NEW LICENSE

I use the free method of the FCC. http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/index.htm?job=home On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:18 AM, "John Becker, WØJAB" wrote: > > > What does one have to do to re-new their ticket on-line > now? Been so lone I forgot > > > -- Mr.C.Robinson 73 DE KF6NFW

Re: [digitalradio] jt65-hf on 6m ?

Tnx Thomas, well been on 50.290 mode of the morning and now on 50.200 and was down on 50.160  So will be calling CQ on 50.200 for a hour.   Tnx Russ NC5O jt65-hf  1- Whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door! 2- A government big enough to give you everything you wan

Re: [digitalradio] Why HamSpots dropped support for ROS

I think is was very gracious of you to offer. Too bad he did not take up the offer. 73 de Andy K3UK On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Laurie, VK3AMA wrote: > Why HamSpots dropped support for ROS. > > > After several emails, it became clear that Mr ROS would not allow any > interaction with

Re: [digitalradio] Some Cluster Stats - ROS auto-spotting

Yes! If you're a psychotic jerk and you want to flood the cluster with unnecessary unwanted traffic. - Original Message - From: Siegfried Jackstien [snip] If there is no page > is there still a reason to send spots? sigi

RE: [digitalradio] New question

M To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question 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 nu

Re: [digitalradio] Some Cluster Stats - ROS auto-spotting

Hi Is it possible for the administrators of these Cluster Nodes to filter out ROS spots on their servers ? la5vna Steinar On 16.07.2010 04:39, Laurie, VK3AMA wrote: > FYI > > I ran some sql over the database at HamSpots which carries 7 days of > Cluster spots. > > ROS Software Auto-Spots run

Re: [digitalradio] ROS back bigger and better !

It would appear that what is does best is the continued mutilation of horse corpses. de Curt KC8STE/AAR5VR 73 --- On Wed, 7/14/10, J. Moen wrote: From: J. Moen Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ROS back bigger and better ! To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 14, 2010, 10:53 PM

Re: [digitalradio] New question

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

Re: [digitalradio] Re : new question

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 08:46:18PM -, raf3151019 wrote: > Do any Old Buffers in the UK remember the original Ros, the one by the > name of Edmundo Ros ? He used to have a small band, had a half hour > a week on the old BBC radio and his band played at social gatherings > where the young rich an

Re: [digitalradio] New question

The comment in parenthesis in number 8 are the comments that reflect my view of why this fine software and mode are not worth the hassle. Andy K3UK On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Jim, N1SZ wrote: > > > Dave & All, > > > > No, I was thinking the same thing. Let’s take a look at some signif

RE: [digitalradio] New question

ehalf Of Dave Wright Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 4:45 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question Why would anyone want to use any version of this software? Which is better; the software that sends out false reports that you can block, or the so

Re: [digitalradio] 40m PSK31

I troll both places. You never know what you might find. Rick KH2DF Sent from my iPhone On Jul 15, 2010, at 3:56 PM, "sholtofish" wrote: > What 40m frequency are most PSK31 QSOs in region 2? > > I haven't been on for a couple of years and it used to be around 7.070 but > now it seems like th

Re: [digitalradio] New question

Why would anyone want to use any version of this software? Which is better; the software that sends out false reports that you can block, or the software that sends out false reports that you can't? In any case, it is doing who knows what in the background. The fact that Jose has now coded a

Re: [digitalradio] New question

Everyone better use V1.0 then, or we shall end up using different versions that don't talk to each other! - Original Message - From: Siegfried Jackstien To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:34 PM Subject: AW: [digitalradio] New question All ve

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] ROS back bigger and better !

Your Subject says ROS is better. Where can I read about the changes and improvements? Can users control whether ROS should generate the artificial spots? Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: Peter L. Jackson To: * Digitalradio Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6:37 PM Sub

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Returns

What mode are you talking about? I'm interested. On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 4:59 PM, F.R. Ashley wrote: > > > Whats so dang fantastic about ROS anyway, that it deserves pages and pages > of emails about it? Remember that other new digital mode a few months ago, > and how great it was, or have you f

Re: [digitalradio] ROS Returns

Whats so dang fantastic about ROS anyway, that it deserves pages and pages of emails about it? Remember that other new digital mode a few months ago, and how great it was, or have you forgotten abouit it already? 73 Buddy WB4M RTTY forever - Original Message - From: "Steinar Aanesland

Re: [digitalradio] New question

PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question > >Hi Rain > >I meant on this forum ;) > >la5vna Steinar > > > > >On 14.07.2010 18:20, rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: >> Hello Steinar, >> >> It is gaining in usage a

Re: [digitalradio] New question

here needs to like it though. And then how can I like something that I can't use? 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- >From: Jeff Moore >Sent: Jul 14, 2010 1:09 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question > >What are you basing tha

Re: [digitalradio] New question

Even the spam messages do not seem to make a difference. I for one, thought it would, wrong again! Amateur Radio a la 2010 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- >From: Steinar Aanesland >Sent: Jul 14, 2010 10:58 AM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New

Re: [digitalradio] New question

ateur Radio a la 2010 > > 73 Rein W6SZ > > > > > -Original Message- > >> From: Steinar Aanesland >> Sent: Jul 14, 2010 10:58 AM >> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question >> >> Hello friend

Re: [digitalradio] Digitsl modes?

roups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digitsl modes? > >Thats the OTH radar on Cyprus. > >Rein PA0R > >>Hi. >> >>Listening on 30 meter tonight, I noticed signals as in here: >> >>http://www.nitehawk.com/rasmit/ros/websdr1.jpg >>http://www.nit

Re: [digitalradio] New question

italradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question > >Hello friends, > >I don't know about you , but I feel it is time to leave Jose and his ROS >mode now. >He doesn't deserve that much attention. > >la5vna Steinar > > > > > > &

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

Julian, The "other side of the coin" is that we must share frequencies (because there is limited space), so in order to do that, it is necessary to be able to understand a request to QSY or a QRL. When there was only CW and phone, this was always possible, but with digital modes, if you do not

Re: [digitalradio] New question

Hello friends, I don't know about you , but I feel it is time to leave Jose and his ROS mode now. He doesn't deserve that much attention. la5vna Steinar On 14.07.2010 12:06, Dave Wright wrote: > Wasn't that part of the infamous fake FCC response that Jose posted on his > website? > > > On

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

attached hereto is prohibited. From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alan Barrow Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 1:16 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum …….. All that said, I&

Re: [digitalradio] New question

Wasn't that part of the infamous fake FCC response that Jose posted on his website? On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Rein A wrote: > Noticed this statement in a report of an exchange with a custom > agent at FCC: > > "ROS is not "Spread Spectrum" because the 3khz HF standard channel is > maintaine

Re: [digitalradio] Digitsl modes?

Thats the OTH radar on Cyprus. Rein PA0R >Hi. > >Listening on 30 meter tonight, I noticed signals as in here: > >http://www.nitehawk.com/rasmit/ros/websdr1.jpg >http://www.nitehawk.com/rasmit/ros/websdr3.jpg (1) > >see at 10.120 KHz and between 10.110 and 10.114 KHz > >These type of signals are a

Re: [digitalradio] Why even use SS, a waste of resources?

Lester, Months of testing of all available modes on a 200 mile, weak signal, path on 432 MHz support what you say. Contestia (or Olivia, but slower) has surfaced as the most reliable mode we have found in the difficult environment of signals marginally above the noise, fading (QSB) as deep at

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

Alan, Thanks for taking the time for a comprehensive reply! Remembering what happens during a contest with overcrowding made me wonder. The problem is that, with stations operating all independently, it is difficult to determine when throughput drops to the point it is not worth the effort. I

RE: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions

W2XJ Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:43 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions Spread Spectrum does not unto itself comprise a means of encrypting information although encryption often accompanies it. On 7/13/10 3:50 PM, "

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

KH6TY wrote: > > > Alan, > > What happens, for example, if 100 DSSS stations are all on at the same > time, on the same beginning and ending frequencies, because everyone > assumes his presence at any one frequency is too short to be noticed? > > Will they interfere with each other, or will they co

Re: [digitalradio] Re: [digital radio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

On 7/13/2010 4:34 PM, W2XJ wrote: That being said, Skip, you are also misrepresenting the situation by stating the FCC made an analysis. Read the documentation and it is clear they made a fairly non committal statement based on the published material. The FCC does not like being involved i

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

Alan, What happens, for example, if 100 DSSS stations are all on at the same time, on the same beginning and ending frequencies, because everyone assumes his presence at any one frequency is too short to be noticed? Will they interfere with each other, or will they collectively interfere wit

RE: [digitalradio] Re: [digital radio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

on SS. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- >From: Alan Barrow mailto:ml9003%40pinztrek.com> > >Sent: Jul 13, 2010 1:22 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random da

Re: [digitalradio] Digital modes other than ROS

ROS does not work? Is that your point? And they are legal, Ros is Not 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- >From: Jeff Moore >Sent: Jul 13, 2010 7:10 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digital modes other than ROS > >What about them? They

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of Alan Barrow Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:22 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum graham787 wrote: >

Re: [digitalradio] Digital modes other than ROS

-Original Message- >From: Jeff Moore >Sent: Jul 13, 2010 7:10 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digital modes other than ROS > >What about them? They all work. > >Jeff -- KE7ACY > >- Original Message - From: Rein

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

W2XJ wrote: > > > It is generally accepted that 10 times bandwidth is the minimum > necessary to achieve enough processing gain to make the use of SS > worthwhile. Not only is it not worth doing, it also increased chances of interference. I'm not aware of any weak signal DSSS using spreading facto

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

g4ilo wrote: > I don't know if that is a dig at one of the arguments I have made in the past, Certainly not directed at you as an individual. I just feel that things like sustained throughput which includes the effect of FEC & processor gain in the case of SS need to be included. So it's not as s

Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions

bg...@comcast.net wrote: > [Attachment(s) <#TopText> from bg...@comcast.net included below] > > > Delighted I am to find the 1998 version of 47CFR97.311 on the GPO > website, attached. > We are both maybe correct. > > The FCC prescribed the method, the operator filled in the variables, > which he k

Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions [1 Attachment]

: "Alan Barrow" To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:03:01 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions bg...@comcast.net wrote: > I'm thinking another reason for the restrictions - SS is also a ver

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

Very well stated, separate questions. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- >From: "J. Moen" >Sent: Jul 13, 2010 6:37 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum > >This question of bandwidth for various m

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

This question of bandwidth for various modes and where to squeeze in the wider modes is a good topic. Reminds me of the folks who really like enhanced fidelity SSB (3.5 out to nearly 5 kHz), or AM. There are many bands at certain times of day that have lots of space for those modes, but I'd ho

Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions

asking questions that are relevant heaving seen comments here on this board over the last couple of months, concerning SS 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- >From: W2XJ >Sent: Jul 13, 2010 4:42 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

Julian I apologize up front, but I do not believe you monitor the bands even the CW sections with a sdr ( wide waterfall ) display. If do did this, your monitor is defective, I am sorry! Watching 40 meter or 30 m or 20 m from a spot in the Eastern part of the Netherlands: http://websdr.e

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

So 10 times is not a property of SS. Yes 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- >From: W2XJ >Sent: Jul 13, 2010 8:46 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum > >It is generally accepted that 10 times bandwi

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

egs, > and/or we can campaign to change them. But saying you don't agree with a law > so you don't have to follow it is not the right way. > > Jim - K6JM > >> >> - Original Message - >> >> From: rein...@ix.netcom.com >> &

Re: [digitalradio] Contestia Digital Mode Freqs

Hi Thomas, Long time no chat!! I hope all is well with you and yours. I've finally put up a couple of dipoles, 90% of the work done by my son-in-law. The only thing that remains is get the coax cables into the house. The way the house is layed out, it won't be trivial, but I am working on it.

Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions

the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution > or use of the contents of this e-mail or any documents attached hereto is > prohibited. > > > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On > Behalf Of bg...@comcast.net >

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

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

Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions

bg...@comcast.net wrote: > I'm thinking another reason for the restrictions - SS is also a very > good means of encryption. > The previous rules on SS required use of a particular type of SS and > the key number was specified in the rule.. > Probably in a pre 1999 ARRL rule book , if anyone really

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

rein...@ix.netcom.com wrote: > Hi Alan, > > Why did you wait so long with contributing here? > Please explain. Hello Rein, I've posted on this subject several times in the past with ITU & IEEE references as well. It does seem to get lost in the noise at times. It does not help at all that the

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

y, July 13, 2010 11:23 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum Hi Alan, Why did you wait so long with contributing here? Please explain. ++ In Feb of this year I quoted from the ARRL's Spread Spectrum Source book page 5-2 ++ " Spread Spectrum Fundam

RE: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions

ribution or use of the contents of this e-mail or any documents attached hereto is prohibited. From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bg...@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:45 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalrad

Re: [digitalradio] SS and the FCC definitions

..@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:52 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? sorry, my typo. It's in 97.3. (b)(9)

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

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 it to FSK144 (or whatever) after being told that SS was not allowed below 1.25m in the US. The FCC rules don't mention bandwidth in relationsh

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

w mailto:ml9003%40pinztrek.com>> >Sent: Jul 13, 2010 1:22 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum > >graham787 wrote: >> So, if bits are added to the transmit wavefo

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

row >Sent: Jul 13, 2010 1:22 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum > >graham787 wrote: >> So, if bits are added to the transmit waveform that are not performing a >> function of helping to re-create an error fre

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

graham787 wrote: > So, if bits are added to the transmit waveform that are not performing a > function of helping to re-create an error free replication of the input data, > it meets my test as spread spectrum. If the symbols in the transmit waveform > cannot be predicted by the previous sequenc

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: Moving ROS forward in the USA?

sorry, my typo. It's in 97.3. (b)(9) - Original Message - From: "Lester Veenstra" To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:38:40 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? SS is

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: Moving ROS forward in the USA?

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

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bg...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 11:49 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? SS is defined in 97.1. ..Brent, KE4MZ ___

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

So the question I closed with; Where did I QSB into the noise. How could I improve. I think understanding the fundamentals will take out a lot of the hocus pocus about some systems, and if we had more open source systems, let the community mind advance the state of the art. Lester B Veenstra M

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

Well I started out life as a Physicist, but had to specialize to find real work HI Lester B Veenstra MØYCM K1YCM les...@veenstras.com m0...@veenstras.com k1...@veenstras.com US Postal A

Re: [digitalradio] Contestia Digital Mode Freqs

Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Contestia Digital Mode Freqs On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:49:43AM -0400, Thomas F. Giella NZ4O wrote: > Contestia is one of the few "mainstream" digital modes that I have not > worked. Where should I look

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

teve, what does this really has to do with this case? I am sorry. 73 Rein W6SZ -Original Message- >From: "Ford, Steve, WB8IMY" >Sent: Jul 12, 2010 6:42 PM >To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum > >I no

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?

italradio@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > Hear, hear > > rgrds > Craig > kq6i > > -Original Message- > From: AA0OI [mailto:aa...@...] > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:52 PM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Movi

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Random data vs Spread Spectrum

I normally just lurk on this list, but I wanted to jump in and make an important clarification. >Mr. Dan Henderson is a paid lawyer ( unusual for ARRL officials ) >Enough said here. He is a liaison person for among other organizations, the >FCC. >He communicates, does not ask questions Dan Hen

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?

Hear, hear rgrds Craig kq6i -Original Message- From: AA0OI [mailto:aa...@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:52 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? HI: I Just have one question... HOW THE HELL OLD ARE YOU PEOPLE

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?

my opinion, my not using it is the right thing for me to do. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: AA0OI To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA? HI: I Just have one question.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Moving ROS forward in the USA?

I was contacted by the person. I did not initiate the contact. I have had dealings with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau as a result of a petition I amde and I guess I have earned a little measure of respect and trust by some of them. I have been asked not to identify anyone, so please do

RE: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rein...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 8:33 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Random data vs Spread Spectrum Hi W2XJ, Could you tell me please ( I am believe to

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >