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

ROS & the FCC

You have to love Mr. Ros's refusal to accept the fact that his mode has been deemed unlawful for use below 222 MHz. First he posts an e-mail that is supposedly from the FCC to his blog, then he is foolish enough to post the callsigns of U.S. amateur operators who are allegedly in violation of FCC rules.

Nice going Mr. Ros.... I hope the FCC is reading this page. Your own arrogance will be your downfall. When your "beta" testers disappear... then what will you do....? Threaten to sue them for not using your mode?

Hey, why don't we see K5NTJ's call sign in the list of contacts? We all know he is such a BIG supporter of ROS..... Oh, he must be busy writing ROS code.... um I mean, supporting ROS.

By the way.... for those who don't know this about U.S. law - Lying (including misrepresentation) or making false claims to a Federal agency is a crime in the United States.

SZ

 

Now Mr. Ros has a post indicating that he has contacted the FCC, asking them to review the situation.

I hate to ask, but what are the chances that this time he is telling the truth, since we know for a fact that he forged the last email from the FCC?


------------

The FCC has indicated to me that the case is under review:
CIMS00002417593 – Request for clarification of new amateur radio digital mode‏
You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC.
Thank you for contacting the FCC Consumer Center.
Because your inquiry requests a determination as to whether the system you have developed complies with the amateur service rules, your inquiry has been sent to the staff that administers these rules.
Representative Number : TSR41

 

ROS Tests

As posted on the Digital Radio group, and reposted here by permission of Skip (KH6TY), here are the results and observations of some ROS tests on UHF. Skip doesn' t get into the legality vs illegality argument, he simply posts the results of some tests. I thought that you all might be interested in these.


>>=====<<
As reported below, ROS does not survive what we think are Doppler-induced disturbances on UHF, but MFSK modes, like Olivia and MFSK16, do. This is further indication that ROS is NOT 144FSK, as now claimed by the author, but actually FHSS, as originally claimed. If it were 144FSK, it would probably survive the sorts of atmospheric disturbances found on 70cm and over the polar paths that also completely destroy PSK31 or other phase-shift modulations. For example, MFSK16 and RTTY are both true FSK modes, and both work with no problem over the polar path or on UHF in the presence of "flutter". If ROS were actually an FSK mode, it would probably do much better, but it simply does not.

Extensive testing of ROS on the air on UHF have now been concluded.

Unfortunately, ROS totally fails for UHF communications, in either 16 baud, or 1 baud variants, and using either the HF or EME channel.

Even with ROS metric readings between -1 dB and -8 dB (i.e. relatively strong signals), ROS only printed on 16 baud or on 1 baud as long as the tones sounded "pure" in the headphones, but as soon as the tones sounded "wobbly" and became broadened on the waterfall, decoding became total garbage.

When SSB phone was understandable (but with significant "flutter"), ROS still would not print, even after a successful Frame Acquisition and Symbol Synchronization and print of the callsigns.

We switched to Olivia 32-1000 and print was perfect, as expected, as signals were strong, even though QSB and "flutter" could be heard.

The problem is that ROS is apparently completely destroyed by what is appears to be "Doppler flutter" (for want of a better term), which is present on UHF most of the time. Under those conditions, the spread spectrum technique used in ROS 16 baud and ROS 1 baud modes simply does not survive the Doppler disturbances, whereas Olivia is a multitone FSK mode and does very well. The ROS 500 Hz FSK variants were not tested, as the hope was that the spread spectrum variant of ROS would outperform Olivia, but instead it did much worse. Olivia 16-500, as a reference, almost equals CW in ability to work near the noise, so we were hoping that ROS would work under the noise, but it did not.

Apparently, spread spectrum is just a poor choice whenever there is Doppler-induced distortion like there usually is on 70cm. When I use two transceivers and computers locally, where there are no Doppler effects, all the ROS variants work perfectly, but in real life conditions, where we are faced with QRM, QSB, multipath, and unstable atmospheric moisture conditions that cause fast frequency shifts (apparently Doppler-induced disturbances), ROS fails completely.

As Olivia has been designed to accommodate all the difficult conditions we have to deal with on both HF and above, Olivia is a much better choice, and at half the bandwidth, at the same typing speed.

This concludes our tests with ROS and there will be further testing or use of ROS by this station.

ROS spread spectrum is legal to use in the US above 222 MHz, so if anyone else can make such tests, please post the results here.

>>====<<


Dave
K3DCW

 

Still banned from ROS and Darn Proud!!!

For those of us lucky enough to be banned in the earlier versions of Mr. Ros's spectrally inefficient code..... you'll be pleased to know that while Mr. Ros has gone to great lengths to obfuscate (even further) our callsigns, it appears that the original 14 members that were banned in version 2.7.4 are still banned in version 2.9.1.

Again, congratulations to all on the list.... here you are:

K5OKC,N1SZ,G4ILO,W4PC,W9IQ,KY5U,KQ6XA,G0GQK,N3RQ,N1SZ,KC4ARAN,
GW7AAV,WA1ZMS,K3DCW

Maybe this will drive Mr. Ros to write another letter to the FCC.... HA HA HA!

What do you say Winki????

SZ

 

ROS Video sample:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFohMdGbrBw

 

Why Bother?

As in previous posts, Mr ROS has been vindictive against people by embedding callsigns in his code, to prevent use by some who have somehow upset him.
Allegedly fabricated false email, purporting it to come from the FCC. Suggested operating frequencies with little regard for band plans. The list probably goes on.
Independent testing by eminent Amateur Radio people have shown it does not offer any real advance in digital mode efficiency, being eco-band friendly or having superior performance.
Why bother with it?
Maybe Mr ROS should flog it off to.....commercial interests, if he thinks its so good.....

73,

Jack VK4JRC (probably on banned list, in next ROS version!)

 

I tested version 4.6.0. and the above calls work fine now in this version. I tested the first three calls from the list above.

Marc, PD4U

 

Beware!

Until today I did not know anything about ROS until I found this post on a Ham Reflector:

Doing a "sniff" on my computer tells me that the ROS software is trying to
log on to telnet dx clusters using the operator calsign in ROS configuration
menu, and trying a range of local ports.
When sucsessfull login, it captures callsigns in the software and posts the
as spots in the clusters as if the operator was doing it. Adding comments
like: tnx fer ROS QSO , tu ROS Mode...

I had no other software running at the same time that could make this
connections, and absolutly NOT without my knowledge.

This is being done without the awareness of the HAM operator, there is no
option or anything in the software that says it is doing this in the
background. It may also be illegal.
If the intention is not to let the operator know that he/she is connected
and also posting fake spots (in this case it's fake when the comment is
saying tnx for a QSO that did not take place)then it's very sad and
dissapointing...


What else is done in the background without your knowledge?

ROS RIP

 

ROS Update - 11 July 2010

Wonder if it is true? From rosmodem.wordpress.com

ROS 1.0 (the last)

<small>11 July, 2010 by José Alberto Nieto Ros</small> I’ve been reading too many derogatory comments towards me in Digital Group and ROSDIGITALMODEMGROUP so I understand that it is not worth further evolve this software.
So, ROS 1.0 is the last version.
73, Jose Alberto
(Comments in this blog have been disabled)




Dave
K3DCW
www.k3dcw.net

 

Oh well - natural selection in action.

If the mode is more bandwidth-hungry and less effective than other modes available to us, it must die. We don't even need to consider the unethic secret comms the softwere sets up.

I for one will be very pleased to see it disappear from HF.

 

License? We don't need no stinkin' license!