Today on 14MHz 1 baud I was called by a series of stations, some quite low signal strength. Sometimes 2 stations called at once, ROS sync’d on the strongest signal the data stayed intact, due to the slight frequency difference I think, even when calls overlapped for a time. The weaker station waited and called after the first caller had completed, all in all the mode did well and the operators were good too.

There were tuners, whistlers and aaaaaloooas present on the frequency and also some Olivia signals which I have not heard for some time. ROS was not troubled by any of them.

It is time that people calmed down and just let time and the mode just take its course. I am sure some of the controversy has been caused by cunning tricks by the anti brigade.
Not since WSPR jumped on top of the 10MHz QRPp QRSS frequency slot has there been such high tension among the gentlemen who usually agree and live in peace.

Careful boys you may be being used. We don’t suddenly need to be regulated by anyone just because there is a new mode and a few folk wanting to try it.

3 thoughts on “ROS and QRM

  1. Hi Ian
    Another Ham user aye, we are few and far between.

    I am wondering about a blog post on this one, I don’t join in the arguments on line, I just comment on here, mostly with the way I see it, and the humorous side.

    I think some recent comments from an RSGB author who was not there from the start of ROS, (I was) need to be corrected because as always it is the anti’s and the sulkers who blast out their opinions which then get adopted as fact.

    To quote:-
    “ROS created quite a stir when it first appeared on HF earlier in the year. Their first suggested working frequency on 20m put it splattering right over the IARU beacons on 14100, which it seems the developers had never heard of. They soon moved it…. And of course the FCC have decreed it is not legal in the USA because it is ‘spread spectrum’ which is not allowed below 220MHz.”

    Aside from the technical in-accuracy that ROS does not ‘splatter’ due to its one tone at a time nature.
    The 14MHz frequency was close, but the data ‘spread’ range never did encroach on the IARU beacons. The first (only?) report of this was from someone who only heard, “space invaders noises” on the frequency. He didn’t check what mode it was, he assumed it must be “the new mode” ROS.
    This lead to the secretary of the propagation committee going it alone and issuing a statement based on hearsay.
    Others did check and found it to be the HF AX25 Packet links.

    The “developers” is a developer, Jose, I am pleased to have done some tests with/for him from the early days. He is not a licensed Ham but he did refer to the Band Plans and was aware of the beacon frequencies, data, (narrow and wide) allocations.There are many Hams who don’t consider Band Plans.
    Jose listened to the advice of operators and rapidly adjusted the suggested frequencies to avoid other activities. If anyone has cause for complaint with him it might be me. He stuck a little stubbornly to the IARU Region2 plan. It took me a long time, 5 Hours of e-mailing back and forth, to convince him that Region1 is different and the QRP/QRSS slots were not just personal preferences but internationally agreed allocations, despite not appearing on the IARU plans. He agreed to give them a wide berth due to the possible QRO nature of ROS. I have seen no evidence of any problems from ROS on QRP/QRSS.

    The FCC farce has been well covered. Quite how if you say that ROS uses ‘Spread Spectrum Techniques’ it then turns technically into an illegal Spread Spectrum Mode I fail to see.

    Jose has Latin ‘hot blood’ and has upset some with his abruptness. This brought out the ‘sulkers’ who then re-discovered Olivia, used it on the ROS frequencies and claimed QRM. Amazingly they then called upon the UK authorities to regulate where ROS can be used.

    I am not sure if it is true but recently, hearsay again, it has been stated that the FCC has now declared Olivia illegal. This follows Jose’s response to ROS being declared illegal, “then Olivia must also be as it uses the same techniques”. If they have, then it becomes even more of a farce the FCC having congratulated the ARRL previously on the use of Olivia during emergencies. it makes you doubt their technical understanding.

    This whole thing must all be true, its so stupid that if you were to make it up no one would believe it.

    So there we have it quite the longest reply to a comment I have ever made. Maybe it is better left hidden here in my comments, difficult to find, like the truth usually is.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s