Narrowband version of ROS still not legal below 222MHz without FCC approval

For some reason QRZ won't let me edit my previous post.

To avoid causing unnecessary alarm I wanted to add that after some digging, I found evidence to suggest that some Microsoft software does generate emails with "thread-index" in lower case. So it is probably just sloppy coding by Microsoft that caused that header to stand out and there is almost certainly nothing hidden in it.

 

Oh no!

Imagine my thoughts: I am now banned for life from running spectrally inefficient, non-open source, domestically HF-illegal software. It was a favor.

My space at Dayton will be easier to locate this year. It will have the banner: "I've been banned from using ROS, and you can too! Ask me how!"

 

ROS - It's a disease

Sweet!

No matter what anyone says about the developer, you have to give him credit for being responsive to the requests of his (US-based, thus not-a-concern) customers.

Dave
K3DCW

 

I wouldn't even call him a developer. My C/C++ bigotry is showing, but VB isn't the correct language to write a new mode in. Can't do alot of the low level stuff needed to be done. He needs to look at the MT-63 source and see how to make a powerful mode in C/C++.

Plus the fact, the code is hackable since you can just go in with debugging tools and change the code you need or even create source from the exe. (Basic is interpreted, not compiled ,hense K5OCK being able to find the function and the data of our callsigns).

Here's how easy it is:

http://www.vb-decompiler.org/

You can make source from the .exe. Put a virus in and then recompile and put it out on the net. This is how alot of the pirated software gets pirated and gets virus's in them.

 

Before we can ASSUME that either the FCC is right, or the creator, we would need to see these "technical details". Right now, I would recommend not using it on HF until the "details" are released, but I'm surprised that the FCC haven't given any "details" on this mode either, so I would question whether they're actually in the dark as much as we are on this and just made a hasty decision without all the facts.

It's interesting to note the changes to Part 97 where this was included in the definition of data modes:

"Only a digital code of a type specifically authorized in this part may be transmitted"

So not only does data have to fit within the modes and bandwidth specified in Part 97 (which ROS actually does), but the actual "digital code" must now be "specifically authorized" by FCC.

That means that a US Amateur cannot legally experiment with digital modes, cannot create a new mode, test it, etc, on ANY of the amateur service bands.

Wonder if the ARRL will ever stop patting themselves on the back and begging for $1000 bricks from all their members long enough to actually do something of value for the Amateur Service, and fight stupid Washington decisions?? I won't hold my breath........

 

Actually, they didn't. What the FCC said was basically "the author says it's spread spectrum, so we believe him". It was a non-commital, CYA answer. So, in a sense they didn't really say anything and we're right back where we started.

I seriously doubt the FCC would want to look at anyone's source code - it's doubtful they could tell what it did just by looking at it.

 

I snipped this off the ARRL page:

§ 97.309(a)(4), which reads:

(4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.

 

Well if you're gonna get 'technical' LOL:

He says in his Technical Description that he uses the Viterbi algorithm. A Viterbi decoder is a spread spectrum decoder.

For those that need pictures.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/24982656/The-viterbi-algorithm

 

Yes, if he's using Viterbi then it is definitely spread spectrum.........

Or, is it?

Here's the thinking behind my question.

If you're "spreading" within the 500hz permitted bandwidth, and are not, as an example, transmitting using several 500hz segments of any given band, are you REALLY using spread spectrum transmissions?

Isn't spread spectrum, as defined by FCC as utilizing more than one segment?
Therefore, ROS would not be spread spectrum as defined by Part 17

Where's the ARRL when you need them

 

You're 100% correct. Notice the change in bold though?

 

No, Not at all.

No. My opinion is it is merely an Audio technique. You can't be spread spectrum by whistling into a microphone.

 

I forget where it is written, but the FCC, by allowing Pactor, has by default allowed binary transmissions. We are no longer restricted to 5 and 7 bit codes.

 

Sure you can. You just have to file the proper paperwork for an STA.

 

What exactly is spread spectrum?

Does the FCC offer a rigorous definition of spread spectrum?

Wikipedia (yeah, I know not a great source) defines it as:

By that logic, wouldn't anything with a forward error correcting code (which results in a wider bandwidth) also be SS?

Would "wide enough that you can transmit (and copy) another signal on top of it" be a better definition?

I want to support the ROS cause, as my hunch is it has been mischaracterized. However, it's hard to when its creator and supporters are being such jerks

 

Rigorous? Not really. But FCC regulations do have a definition in Part 2:

Spread Spectrum Systems. A spread spectrum system is an information bearing communications system in which: (1) Information is conveyed by modulation of a carrier by some conventional means, (2) the bandwidth is deliberately widened by means of a spreading function over that which would be needed to transmit the information alone. (In some spread spectrum systems, a portion of the information being conveyed by the system may be contained in the spreading function.)