“It is my understanding of a recent NPRM of the FCC that the ARRL is opposed to having Ros used on the HF bands and 6 and 2 meters. If you look back at responses from the ARRL they think Ros would interfere with other users. I think they have not looked at the limited frequencies suggested to use. Nor have considered how little 10 watts will bother other users It seems that they have made a stand years ago and their will be no movement on this matter. The ARRL is not in our best interests on this matter.
73 Fred Darrah N9GUE”
ARRL and Mr. Dan Henderson-N1ND have been lying to Ham Radio Community about ROS legality in USA. While Mr Henderson wrote ”The ARRL supports — as one of the basic purposes of Amateur Radio — the experimentation and advancing the technical skills of operators.”, he was opposed to having ROS on HF in the NPRM of the FCC. This is contradictory, irresponsible and scandalous.
So,it is very clear that the ARRL lies about its basic purposes of Amateur Radio, and lies about FCC statement. There is no official statement of the FCC and Mr. Henderson will have to give explanations to Ham Radio Community about “his interferences” before resign from ARRL.
15 November, 2010 at 03:49
It will be bedlam if the yanks discover how well ROS goes so lets keep quiet and enjoy our transequatorial contacts hi de Pete zl2aub
16 November, 2010 at 11:43
I totally agree with Pete. This mode of transmission is really very effective and if everyone discovers it and uses it there will not be enough frequencies available, so if the ARRL is against this ROS mode, too bad for them ….
16 November, 2010 at 12:13
The problem, i think, is that while with JT65 only send your callsign and locator, with ROS 4 bauds can do a complete chat with a very weak signal.
For that reason ARRL wanted kill the mode in the first week. Fortunatelly without sucess
27 November, 2010 at 04:46
Jose Greetings,
I want to tell you that the programing for ROS mode is very good. I will use the mode for receive mode to give reception reports to all I decode. While I can not transmit because of out dated FCC rules , I can contribute in this way. I do not want you to think bad of all ARRL members as we are people just like you. I support your efforts and appreciate your work. Possibly the thought that if the USA starts using the mode it will crowd the bands is true.
Enjoy the mode.
Thanks to you Jose
Fred Darrah N9GUE
28 November, 2010 at 21:01
I agree with you, Fred.
But it is clear that every dollar that The ARRL could receive contribute to people like Mr Henderson and others continue oppose to progress, now and in the future.
So, give money to ARRL cannot be compatible with to be an ERC member. That’s our little contribution.
7 December, 2010 at 20:26
Unfortunately I have to disagree with this stand against ARRL members. Whatever Mr Henderson may have done, I do not believe it is in the interests of the European ROS club to restrict membership in this way. There are many ARRL members that support (and use) ROS, who would be very active and useful members of the ROS club.
Tim VK4YEH
4 February, 2011 at 14:43
I am using ROS with Elecraft K3 with CAT control. For digital modes the K3 uses a special data mode instead of usb. So equalizer, compressor is of and audio is handled over special cnnector on the back side. If I use ROS V6.2.3Beta and I switch to another frequency, every time it jumps in USB mode. I had to manually switch to Data mode. What can I do? Can you modify ROS, that it works right with Elecraft K3?
4 February, 2011 at 15:09
Hi Frank,
No problem. Open your email.
23 February, 2011 at 17:27
Excellent work.
25 February, 2011 at 08:46
MITEN TÄHÄN PÄÄ SEE LIITYYN OLISKIVA TIETÄÄ LIITYSIN HETI OH1FUS
2 March, 2011 at 13:29
It would be greatful to have a software fo ROS mode that works also on linux,
anyway good job !
73
3 March, 2011 at 08:38
Hi all Amateur 73 posible add to ros program options auto actualisation and normal instaler program or uninstal ? And support nvidia cuda procesing for ros ? Tnx best regards
7 March, 2011 at 00:01
Yes CUDA will be great !
28 March, 2011 at 17:49
i do hope that a linux version will be available soon so i can join the fun.
30 April, 2011 at 10:26
MayI suggest to implement ROS XX/500 on all Bands. Maybe this will help to convince those who think there is to much of the valuable space used for this mode. Anyway this reduced bandwidth seems to work very well on 40m.
30 April, 2011 at 13:09
ARRL lied also about ROS/500 and even ROS/100. The said are illegal too. ROS was not invented in USA.
2 May, 2011 at 02:42
Re.: 500hz on all bands.
Vy good idea Heinz. Then we can avoid 2000hz signals in the 500hz digital segments !
Vy 73 de Peter OZ1PMX
2 May, 2011 at 10:40
Re.: 500Hz on all Bands
Well, José Alberto is the expert. He knows if this has perhaps only a moderate effect on the S/N marge ? If an addition of 500Hz to all bands would have an effect on the increased use of this exellent digital mode why not have a try ? José Alberto says the ARRL opposes 500Hz or even 100Hz. I think we should not be discouraged by their attitude towards ROS-mode. If the rest of the world uses it they will perhaps reconsider this matter some time.
Meanwhile we just continue to have fun with ROS and all those who like to share with us.
4 May, 2011 at 02:42
I am looking forward to use OmniRig again as a second option for CAT !
73 de Peter OZ1PMX
4 May, 2011 at 20:30
Where is the different?
10 June, 2011 at 18:26
Since i am the ONLY ZS operating the mode i am very glad to be the most distant contact for LOTS of stations.
I copy even the very weak signals but it seems Europa has a much higher noise level as u dont always copy me .
20 August, 2011 at 15:50
Sorry for my ignorance, if the ROS so requires as much bandwidth
As bandwidth demand Olivia how many other digital modes
this is just a baseless fancy…………………
Mucha fuerza Jose cuentas con mi apoyo incondicional
73 Luis LU4ECN Argentina
4 September, 2011 at 21:35
Gentlemen,
I have a question I think i already know The answer.
is it or is it not legal to operate Ros in the USA> i SWL a lot and i use all the other Digital mode. i would love to be able to add ROS to that list? Guidance would be appreciated.
tony cranston WA2HYO
wa2hyo @gmail .com
5 September, 2011 at 00:41
Hello Tony,
It is well known that the ARRL, supported by some yahoo forums, started a campaign of uncertainty and discussion about the legality of ROS to prevent their use by USA Hams.
But the FCC is who makes the rules, not the ARRL. And unfortunately for a minority, ROS is not a Spread Spectrum mode and according FCC rules: LEGAL in USA.
73 de EA5HVK
6 September, 2011 at 17:21
Why is the USA hams then afraid to come on ROS .
WHO are they afraid of? In the land of the free and the living it seems there isn’t any freedom.
ANY USA hams willing to come on the air with ROS .
PLEASE
8 September, 2011 at 14:06
In the 1990’s my PC was running windows 3.1 and dos 6.2 , the concept of sound card based data modes had yet to materialise, where DSP processing was still a mysterious thing …
However , the Military had realised the advantages of wide bandwidth when associated with digital transmission , and where quite happy with systems running over 2MHz bandwidth and where operational in the 1980’s and before
These modes where designated ‘spread spectrum’ and proved a little tricky to intercept , especially if you only had a modified WS19 … to avert the possibility of parallel development and the HF bands sinking in a sea of random noise , the mode SS was added to the FCC prohibition list , well before the 1990’s started.
All the legislation and arguments centred round ‘interference’ and the raising of the level of side band noise .. and quite rightly too as hard wired frequency hopping was never going to be clean ..There it lay until, with the passing of window’s 3.11 and the DSP development board’s , the average Jo could run advanced data modes , using the PC soundcard .
But what if the bandwidth was limited and it never produced sidebands ? That was never envisaged … as was the possibility of ‘’KC Jones’’ , being replaced by ‘’EA Jo’’ . Challenges have been made , proposing to limit possible interference but rejected, quite rightly, over the years on the same basis that
“You can clean up a pig, put a ribbon on it’s tail, spray it with perfume, but it is still a pig’’
So what now ? : Its been proven that the ROS system co-exists with other data modes , why in fact relations are so cosy, often other modes like to share the same channel !, even other ROS users can share the same channel , right neighbourly I would say ?
Thus ROS Has NO RESEMBLANCE to the system legislated against in the 1990’s as ‘SS’ , but it has all the advantages of the pioneering mode and has provided the first real time multi access data mode available to the armature community ..
Its my channel old boy ! , and mine ! , me too ! , same here !, just passing by ! , anyone about ?
8 September, 2011 at 14:14
With the new selective lock/calling , multi access to the same channel has debunked the tearful ‘its sooo wide’ argument as several ‘real time’ qso’s may co-exist on the same frequency … besides who is to say someone’s conversation talking in a ssb channel is more important that some one ‘Key taping’ in the same space ?
8 September, 2011 at 16:09
only one question:
in the case of ROSMF 100Hz and ROS EME 64Hz what was the argument? ‘its sooo wide’ ? or perhaps ‘not made in USA’ ?
8 September, 2011 at 16:43
I don’t see why there is a big concern on this still.
http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-reaffirms-statement-on-ros
I don’t see any evidence of ARRL presently having any position different than the FCC.
8 September, 2011 at 16:48
The position of FCC was: ” The Commission does not determine if a particular mode “truly” represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules. The licensee of the station transmitting the emission is responsible for determining that the operation of the station complies with the rules”
it is clear the ARRL has a position different than the FCC.
8 September, 2011 at 17:03
Where is the evidence of ARRL’s position currently being different?
8 September, 2011 at 17:19
Johan,
I’m a US ham and I enjoy new digital modes.
I am extremely put off by the attitude of the ROS community towards Americans. I seem to recall that the European ROS Club prohibits any ARRL members from joining (is that different now?) Also this web page, accusing ARRL and others of lying — I have yet to see proof of that — is another example. It seems to me to be a hostile community, maybe a trolling community, and I don’t want to be a part of that.
I am an ARRL member. I don’t agree with everything they do, or everything they’ve done in the past, but overall I think they are a good organization. I can have disagreements with them without resorting to personal attacks.
I don’t see any issue at all with a 100Hz or 64Hz-wide mode, if that’s now available in ROS. Other digital modes occupy as much bandwidth. I also don’t see ARRL as being on record as opposed to that.
8 September, 2011 at 17:40
I don’t see why there is a big concern on this still.
That the problem !, the USA is being kept in the DARK over the development and use of modern digital techniques and modes, it needs some way of shedding some LIGHT on the situation.
All the recent development’s have centered round multi carrier phase modulated systems , which by definition are never going to compete with modern MFSK based systems.
Take PSK31 and MF-7 , both have similar data rates , both have similar bandwidth, one has a s/n advantage of over 10dB and will is immune from phase-distortion…
8 September, 2011 at 20:17
There is no one that will step forward and give positive evidence that Ros mode is or is not SS. The ARRL has the experts and are not willing to step forward and give the truth to all of us in the USA.
The FCC also has the experts to define this and are not willing to give the evidence. When an answer is such as the FCC has given, that it is up to the operator to know what he is transmitting and not for us to determine what he is transmitting, has no merit. It is like saying use what you want but we really do not know what is being transmitted on the bands. I believe it is the ARRL responsibility to make the determination on ROS and if not SS, step up to the plate and hit the ball into the FCC’s court.
8 September, 2011 at 22:51
The problem is, everyone is dancing round the ‘BONFIRE OF SYNTAX’
The regulations prescribe ‘ANY’ data mode that utilises a baud rate in excess of 300 bauds is prohibited and any modulation scheme that results in a bandwidth in excess of the theoretical ‘minimum’ required to convey any such data is here with prohibited, this being convoluted to embrace by association , the word ‘SPREAD’ in its literal meaning to ‘stretch’ (in this case the imagination)
So one asks how do stations use modes like MT63 and ALE with impunity ?
Simple.no one asked , so no one was told , Its how thing work over there , based on the Fifth amendment : ‘Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself’: And time after time, the same is repeated, it was described as, so be it.
Odd, Quaint, Bizarre, Unusual, Strange, but TRUE
8 September, 2011 at 23:08
And where is the list of allowed modes by the FCC? because i have not seen that modes for any place.
could then an USA Ham go to the jail if he is transmitting with ALE, for example?
The Land of the freedom, ji ji
8 September, 2011 at 23:12
There is no such list, because the FCC explicitly doesn’t want to be in the business of having to approve modes. Amateur radio is about experimentation and the FCC wants it that way. Viewed in that light, their statement about this mode makes sense. If FCC gives specific guidance about one mode, then people will ask them to for all modes. FCC provides general rules and hams are supposed to know how to apply them.
8 September, 2011 at 23:24
Viewed by the light of the enlightened world, it makes no sense a tall , when hugely expansive multi carrier data systems are purported to be fully compliant , with this , what can only be defended as a clerical error , while a 100 hz mfsk mode is handled as if it where found on the beach at Fukushima
9 September, 2011 at 05:31
I note a fair chunk of the world is on Ros working well with no problems except when digi mode contests such as RTTY PSK31 spread over the Ros freqs even then its still possible to carry out a qso with too much trouble. I have worked 25 dxcc so far and note others have done better. 73 de Pete zl2aub
9 September, 2011 at 15:56
We have all seen and heard the signals from Pactor 3 , It smashes and suppresses every other signal on the band .
When pactor 3 comes up u can forget about ANY mode being used even PSK31 can’t make it.
How then can PACTOR 3 be legal ?
How wide must wide be before its not narrow anymore.
SSTV takes the complete audio spectrum yet its legal?
ANY mode that is fed into the mic circuit cant be wider than speech.
Therefore speech has to be the limit .
ANY USA HAMS willing/BRAVE ENOUGH to come up on ROS for a QSO?
ZS6AF
13 September, 2011 at 17:11
Dear All, Here is my five penneth worth to the debate from a 6 month member:
I don’t believe that calling anyone a liar will help effect a reconciliation or appeal to prospective users. There is a need to tone down the language. The ROS community needs as many friends as it can get. Perhaps an article on what the FCC rules are, and how these are interpreted by the ARRL, and how this affects the rest of hammdon would be useful. Advertising ROS in national and club radio magazines (electronic and paper) and a video may increase the numbers if that is what you want. We need more ZS6AF, ZL2AUB etc. stations for us in their antipodes to call.
Regarding spectrum use: It is fairly easy to pack in narrow bandwidth signals close together with the aid of waterfall displays, For wider ROS modes what about interleaving the tones in frequency and in theory, in time, to equal the number of possible stations working narrow mode in say 2000Hz total bandwidth. One may have to test to get a signal to interference ratio for various channels, much in the same way as the symbol rate switches from 16, 8, 4 , with signal/noise threshold correspondingly -23, -26 and -29 dB.
g0okx
13 September, 2011 at 17:32
Hello Kim,
I remember you that who said ROS is SS was Mr Dan Henderson, so he is a liar. I think USA Hams should replace him fo other person more qualified.
EA5HVK
13 September, 2011 at 19:49
Dear Jose,
Ouch!
g0okx
14 September, 2011 at 02:51
Thanks Kim I would like to see another switch on the panel to go from 2000 to 500 and 250 as we have found with Olivia narrower configeration works very well so dont need the full 2000hz all the time or in the case of Olivia the full 1000hz
15 September, 2011 at 10:59
According to
http://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/radio-sounds.html even OLIVIA is described as :
OLIVIA (a spread-spectrum AFSK TOR FEC mode)
But it is allowed ? Or maybe FCC dont think it is . Do urself a favour and go look and listen , there is a lovely explanation with pictures and a sound file of every mode.
Remember: According to FCC, Spread spectrum is not defined by the amount of bandwidth. It is defined by the modulation technique.
SO PLEASE stop complaining about that. Even if its 3000hz wide doesn’t make it spread spectrum . Even if its 10 khz wide still doesn’t make it Spread Spectrum .
ZS6AF
15 September, 2011 at 13:21
Then USA Hams that transmit with Olivia could to have a serius problem.
Imagine what happen if someday the FCC knock to his door.
17 September, 2011 at 21:28
Even if its 10 khz wide still doesn’t make it Spread Spectrum .
That is the problem in the FCC book of dodgy data modes , it clearly states that ‘ Thou shalt take no more bandwidth than is required to transmit such data and at a rate not exceeding 300 baud’s , less the bandwidth exceed that of a 2 tone FSK system using less than 300 baud’s ‘
Hence it came to pass , the 500 baud psk mail sevice was reduced to 250 bauds within the boundary of regulation , this displeasing other users as it slows the system down..
hence forth a plauge of technical obseleance settled over the free land
Hear end’eth the lesson …
18 September, 2011 at 09:36
Is there a connundrum here? On one hand experimenters, in the modern context DSP, trying out new ideas. On the other, operators, specially contest ops who want tried and tested modes and band plans. The political influence tends to lie with the tried and tested. Maybe they have forgotten that ham radio started with experimentation, should I say all radio did. Is it a case that one is judged by another?
Contribution on a Sunday morning; please forgive.
18 September, 2011 at 14:27
Even if ROS is rewritten to use 300Baud or less and reduced bandwidth it will never be allowed.
U cant UNRUNG a bell .
There is some slow ROS modes that uses narrow bandwidth but i assume they wont be legal.
21 September, 2011 at 16:05
For Whom the Bell Tolls ?
Not the first time W / EA relations have been polarised then ?
31 July, 2012 at 10:49
I tend to think that a certain eme software writer in the US who has a lot of political clout in scientific circles is possibly the instigator of the rebellion against ROS. From what I have read about his software…it seems that most world records and eme qso’s are invalid, but no-one has the balls to take up the case against WSJT. I am no expert, but the software needs investigating and a report issed by an independent expert in the field. Go ROS go.
16 September, 2012 at 02:26
So … is there an XOR function applied against a ‘spreading’ (pseudo-random noise code; the heart of DS-SS technology anyway) or not?
An interested technical type would like to know …
.
16 September, 2012 at 08:27
thre is not any XOR function
1 May, 2013 at 08:16
Is ROS being used or licensed commercially anyplace?
Slim
1 May, 2013 at 15:19
I have been using the mode anyway just like i run DSTAR occasionally on hf and it is the same way as ROS the ARRL cant make up its mind as an OO i can tell you nobody is going to bother you on it so go for it and enjoy it as i have been and i am a European ROS club member #804 In ILLINOIS…
2 May, 2013 at 02:46
Good on you John look foward to a contact 14103 de Pete zl2aub
6 May, 2013 at 04:14
Interference; no particular direction, sounds like powerline, ROS minimum threshold -17db, before -28db, present 24/7, unable to null with mfj-1026. Jose, can you design a slower mode one direction to enable reception in the noisy cities, at the same time allowing communication as fast as possible i.e. one direction fast, the return direction slow. The slowest an hour per symbol say with a test for coherency (is that possible)? PS. Haven’t tried new mode yet. Talking out of my hat?
Cheers, Kim.
6 May, 2013 at 11:08
Hello Kim.
Possible but not practical. A chat mode cannot be extremately slow. Nobody will use it.
13 May, 2013 at 21:10
I know it has been beat to death but why not simply redifine ROS with a “Official” defnition that makes no mention or display of so called spread spectrum. I can look at the spectrum display and see what I think it is but it is contained within the channel space allowed?? The FCC says Ros “knows what his mode is” or to that effect. Why not remind them and tell them it is not spread spectrum.
Slim
>
13 May, 2013 at 21:23
Because ARRL had special interest in remind them “It is spread spectrum”
15 May, 2013 at 02:43
I don’t understand your statement?? Are you saying they had someone “tell” them it is spread Spectrum? Was it ever called spread spectrum by you or in any document desc ribing how it works? I do not comprehend.
15 May, 2013 at 08:56
are you read this article?
15 May, 2013 at 18:52
The ARRL toggles the Guitar and No ham dare defy the Mighty ARRL or FCC for that matter cos once they made up their mind that its Spread Spectrum no proof will make them change. That in itself must tell u how clever they are if they can’t test it and decide for them self but has to go on the authors word.
Honestly they don’t want to change . Some of the USA told them to get lost and used it cos the older hams is clever enough to realize u can’t feed audio into a radio and its spread spectrum. But that is not why it was called SS. It was because of the type of coding and the fact that they don’t allow coding like that where its 3or 5 characters. I got the reply from them , contact me and i can send it to u .
It makes STUPID sense , and most USA hams knows it but decide not dare go against the stream for fear of contravening the FCC law on coding.
It has NOTHING to do with Spread Spectrum . Its the coding of the signal that is the problem. Now we are totally confused . Most USA hams also so even better reason to leave it and do something else.