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

Same Thing for Pactor II and III......

Seems I recall the owner of SCS saying something not too different. It's been a while, so Dr. Halperin may have changed his mind. Anybody else making Pactor II or III modems these days?

 

Nothing beats a good analogy. Like I just said WRT Pactor II and III, where's the competing DStar equipment?

 

There are many digital processes that must be done in DSP. Some of them are proprietary, as that is how corporations make money.

You could say the same thing when the NPN transistor came out, that you can't use it on Ham radio because we don't know what goes on inside.

I don't think AMBE, which is a known vocoder, is any different than an AND-Gate, or a flip-flop. It performs a vocoder function, and does not hide information, so monitoring can be performed. AMBE converts voice to a digital stream that modulates the RF somehow. It is this modulation that is important.

ROS could be done in DSP, and even be proprietary, but the modulation would have to be specified. Just as G4GUO specified his OFDM process after the AMBE chip. Just as PSK, FSK, AFSK, etc, other modes have done. He could be doing 8 FFT's, 2 Convolutions, and a double-twist for all I care, but when it comes time to hook it all to RF, he ought to be able to identify the modulation using FCC rules.

His first attempt was to call it spread spectrum. He had a one-page PDF article that described it as spread-spectrum. I read the article, and I was not convinced it was spread spectrum. It looked like a serial tone modem to me. Then he called it 144MSK, and that didn't look right either, because he said he uses a combination of 128MSK and 16MSK.

At that point I figured he didn't know what he was playing with, and his not being a Ham only confused people. I think he wants to build something useful, but his pride goes before his skill.

Fade-to-black...

 

but of course there are! but documentation for other vocoders is open, and yet we go proprietary, against the spirit of ham radio...

Well, every single teaching book on electronics describes how transistor works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_junction_transistor

quite easy to find.

Yet, you can replicate a transistor, but you are forbidden by law to replicate the AMBE chip. So , no complete documentation, no tampering, illegal for ham applications. Simple as that.

AMBE is neither a transistor nor a chip. Is Software. It is proprietary software run on a protected TI FPGA processor. it hasn't got the operating parameters undisclosed and public. So, illegal for ham use.

ROS couldn't be proprietary for the above reasons.

this is the last post will make regarding AMBE on this thread(forum rules).

 

One of his Visual Basic subroutines is called modNonGrata and it compares the callsigns entered to a list of denied users. Currently it is:

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

 

Goodie, Im on his blacklist!

He doesn't realize I own a company that could help him promote his mode and work with the FCC with our snap in DLL technology, as well as he could work with Timewave on putting the mode in a box, yet he comes across unprofesional and childish because of the FCC rules and demands the resignation of one of the people at the ARRL (Dan Henderson, N1ND) who helps our cause but who doesn't make or enforce the rules.

It does look like ROS is dead in the water due to the unprofessional attiude of the designer, not due to the technical merits of the mode.

There's only a handful of us who have been in the digital mode industry for years, and know how to make modes that are legal for use in the U.S. and outside.

He has alot to learn about the digital industry.

 

We've asked Dr Tom Rink many times to allow Timewave to licence Pactor II and II for the PK-232 and other TNCs, he still says no.

 

Well, then we know he's watching QRZ... I haven't posted anywhere else about this subject.

 

He can't spell your call though N1SZ must be really hated, he's on there twice, ha.

 

What I mean't was "at the time it was invented."

But I'm not on a diatribe or anything. No one cares what I think, and that's fine. Just because my aunt Lizzie killed her parents with a hatchet is no reason to be worried about me

 

Another theory...

Besides Julian's excellent post as to "why ROS", my thoughts have been:

1) Assuming the author is NOT a ham, then...
2) The author may be a grad student who's software project/thesis is ROS.

What better a way to get FREE beta testers of software than to unleash it on the global base of amateurs. Toss in a few
cutting edge terms like "SS-spread spectrum" to fluff-up the project and it sounds like the next best thing.

Then.....when it is pointed out to you that a large portion of your BETA test-base (that being US hams) are not not authorized to run SS on the HF bands, you retreat and change the technical description in haste.

So here's hoping I will make it on the banned list!

 

ROS

Good for me! Banned not once but twice! Guess i'll have to change my callsign now.... NOT!

I have to give all credit for the "ROS = Run Other Software" to WA1ZMS. Frankly, all I was trying to convey was that if one is uncertain about the legality they shouldn't use the mode until there is clarification. This is the prudent thing to do, at least in the US.

Given the scope of this entire drama, Mr. Ros seems to have a rather vindictive side about him when challenged. If he is in business, he should re-evaluate his use of threats and retaliation to get his way. These actions do very little for customer relations....let alone business development.

 

Spread Spectrum or......Not?

Spread spectrum, from a non-systems type's understanding has been a mode that uses a protocol to shift both transmitter and receiver across a fairly wide band segment in synchronism. ROS, from what I've heard discussed here, doesn't seem to fit that description. It appears to be a narrow-bandwidth digital mode. So, what's the fuss?

Probably something gained in the translation to English. A misconception? Fancy-sounding, high-powered adjectives to attempt to garner attention?
At this point, its garnered some possibly inappropriate NEGATIVE publicity for ROS. The ROS developer needs to explain to the FCC why that it doesn't fit the classic SS definition.

**Why** does the FCC all of a sudden demand the public release of the ROS protocol, when they have not yet done that for Pactor II and Pactor III?

Could the reason be that ARRL loves WinLink 2000 so much and SCS Modems that they won't push the issue or has talked the FCC staff into looking the other way? Or, that ROS may present a challenge to the "superiority" of Pactor III?

The reason there are yet no second or third sources for Pactor II and III modems is that SCS will not release the protocol into the public domain. Plain and simple. And, it should be required by the FCC to be used only where non-public protocols are permitted.

73.

 

What the deal?

Illegal immigration is also against the law' but our government supports and encourages illegal aliens, so what is the big deal with ROS?

 

I agree. The Fuss was that the author said it was SS. Americans then replied that we couldn't use it then, and then the author deleted the SS stuff and created a new file called 144FSK. Not fussy, but kind of idiotic.

I don't think the FCC gives a hoot. It's actually hams who are putting out this weird FCC hoopla.

I think as long as you describe the modulation in FCC terms, and start using it, that's good enough for me. The FCC hasn't approved any ham radio modem, why should they start now.

The author should read the applicable statutes, and pick a modulation code (144FSK25 for example) that fits what he is doing, and is legal on HF.


§ 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.

ARRL: Documentation should be adequate to

(a) recognize the technique or protocol when observed on the air,
(b) determine call signs of stations in communication and read the content of the transmissions.