FCC Declines Request to Extend Comment Period on Shortwave Modernization Petition

Status
Not open for further replies.

w2xq

Mentor
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
2,361
Location
Burlington County, NJ

The amateur radio community is upset. Will the transmission of financial transactional data be that upsetting? I don't think so. Press services and PTP networks were all over the dial in the 1950s and 1960s. These services didn't bother me then. Why is now any different?
 

BucksGuyUSA

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2022
Messages
23
Maybe because there's a LOT more HF interference from various things like street lights, electric cars and other gizmos tossing out all kinds of harmonics all over the HF bands?
I don't particularly care, even though I've been licensed for decades. I have always seen HF as being a sort of "last resort" after pretty much anything else has failed; there are more and better ways to communicate, even in amateur radio, so re-using some of the "scrapyard of radio" bandwidth for something that actually has a purpose isn't the worst thing.
 

mikewazowski

Forums Manager/Global DB Admin
Staff member
Forums Manager
Joined
Jun 26, 2001
Messages
13,766
Location
Oot and Aboot

The amateur radio community is upset. Will the transmission of financial transactional data be that upsetting? I don't think so. Press services and PTP networks were all over the dial in the 1950s and 1960s. These services didn't bother me then. Why is now any different?
Apparently these are broadband high power signals adjacent to amateur bands with a proposed weakening of adjacent spectrum interference rules.

Here's the ARRL's take on the situation: ARRL Files Comments Against “Seriously Flawed” HF Rules Petition
 

w2xq

Mentor
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
2,361
Location
Burlington County, NJ
Apparently these are broadband high power signals adjacent to amateur bands with a proposed weakening of adjacent spectrum interference rules.

Here's the ARRL's take on the situation: ARRL Files Comments Against “Seriously Flawed” HF Rules Petition
Mike, while the ARRL has a point (I started reading QST in ~1954) even my old Drake and Hammalund receivers could handle the interference on bands like 41m vs 40m. My HQ-120, HQ-140 and HQ-150 just worked, as did my JRC NRD receivers. Now the wide-open front ends of the band-scope SDRs stuff are being pushed out the door, and my perception is the ARRL is protecting the big three advertisers. Whatever... time marches on. <sigh>
 

MStep

Member
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
2,184
Location
New York City
Maybe because there's a LOT more HF interference from various things like street lights, electric cars and other gizmos tossing out all kinds of harmonics all over the HF bands?
I don't particularly care, even though I've been licensed for decades. I have always seen HF as being a sort of "last resort" after pretty much anything else has failed; there are more and better ways to communicate, even in amateur radio, so re-using some of the "scrapyard of radio" bandwidth for something that actually has a purpose isn't the worst thing.
I'm not sure I would agree with HF being the "last resort". Amateur radio operators who enjoy the use of the HF radio spectrum as their primary access to the hobby, and who have thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars of HF equipment, would likely disagree with your characterization as well.

The ARRL has for many years, with its vast membership, done all in its power to protect the bandwidth that radio amateurs enjoy in their pursuit of the hobby. Not to mention the many humanitarian efforts that ham radio operators have contributed during times of disaster and crisis, when there were no other forms of communications available.

As an analogy, putting high-powered commercial HF stations on frequencies adjacent to the amateur radio spectrum appears similar in concept to a commercial broadcaster suddenly deciding that they are going to plant a 500 foot tower in an area adjacent to your backyard, thus obscuring the beautiful view you've had for fifty years. As in "there goes the neighborhood". And once you open the door to one commercial entity, who knows how many will follow?

I believe that the ARRL and the amateur radio community are right in being concerned about the detrimental effect this could have on the ham radio spectrum.
 

a727469

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 15, 2003
Messages
465
Location
Maine
This is a hard one. I can see both sides. I have been licensed for 30+ years and understand that there has always been a fight going on for various frequencies that others would like to take from amateur radio and I understand that an effort should be made to try and keep the frequencies where possible and appreciate ARRL taking this role.

I also understand the occasional usage of shortwave frequencies in disaster/emergencies etc. However, this is 2023 and hams have many other ways to communicate in these situations even though shortwave can/may be helpful. But the full amateur shortwave spectrum is not needed. Frankly, I would not try to sell the retaining of shortwave frequencies on facts such as we have bought expensive equipment that we could not use or that someone might interfere with our contacting someone just to talk or obtain a reward for number of contacts etc(contesting). Emergencies, yes, hobby use, not so much.

I hate as much as anyone being threatened of having something taken away from me, and that is why I see why ARRL is pursuing this, but frankly, as much as we may not like the changes, amateur radio is evolving into many more up to date activities to hopefully capture many more younger people who can continue to enjoy the public service aspects along with other much newer technologies. I have talked with many local younger current and future hams about interests and sorry, shortwave voice or code is not on that list.
 

AK9R

Lead Wiki Manager and almost an Awesome Moderator
Super Moderator
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
9,963
Location
Central Indiana
There are many 50-100 KW shortwave broadcasters, adjacent to ham bands that cause zero interference issues.
Because they conform to tighter emissions standards than what the SMC is asking for. The proposal is asking the FCC to allow emissions outside the 6-9 kHz bandwidth that commercial broadcasters use.
 

dlwtrunked

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
2,381
Because they conform to tighter emissions standards than what the SMC is asking for. The proposal is asking the FCC to allow emissions outside the 6-9 kHz bandwidth that commercial broadcasters use.
In fact some are experimenting with bandwidths on HF as large as 48 kHz.
 

mikewazowski

Forums Manager/Global DB Admin
Staff member
Forums Manager
Joined
Jun 26, 2001
Messages
13,766
Location
Oot and Aboot
Because they conform to tighter emissions standards than what the SMC is asking for. The proposal is asking the FCC to allow emissions outside the 6-9 kHz bandwidth that commercial broadcasters use.
I saw 50kHz bandwidth mentioned.
 

BinaryMode

Blondie Once Said To Call Her But Never Answerd
Joined
Jul 3, 2023
Messages
848
Location
75 parsecs away
You know what they say, money talks and BS walks. I feel this will open the door to take more - spectrum....

The high-frequency trading industry has been using the shortwave links for several years using experimental licenses granted by the FCC to send trading data between U.S. and foreign exchanges. The industry has often relied on fiber and other technologies for long-distance, passive market making, according to experts.

So use modern day technology and leave the "old" stuff alone!

Just so everyone is clear.

The ARRL Laboratory performed a detailed technical analysis over several months to determine if the proposed rules would affect operations on the bands allocated to Radio Amateurs that are inter-mixed with the Part 90 bands in the spectrum in question.

ARRL’s analysis determined that, if the proposed rules are adopted, the new operations inevitably will cause significant harmful interference to many users of adjacent and nearby spectrum, including Amateur Radio licensees.

I don't know, I'm all about freedom and cherishing what we have without the Feds taking more...

Addendum:

I think they ought to outlaw lobbing via Constitutional amendment. It causes MORE harm than good. But that's just me...

PS:

Maybe they're hedging against a possible world-wide telecommunications hack? LOL I mean, why NOT stick to fiber and modern day technology?
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
25,291
Location
United States
Maybe they're hedging against a possible world-wide telecommunications hack? LOL I mean, why NOT stick to fiber and modern day technology?

No. The issue is that they use IP data. IP data makes a lot of hops through the network. Router to router until it gets where it is going. Each time is passes through a router, it delays the data. Those delays can add up to a lot of lost money if they don't complete trades fast enough. While they are waiting for the packets to bounce through the network, another trader with a shorter path can snipe the lower price.

The benefit of HF radio is that they can haul data over longer distances much faster than fiber/IP links. It's pretty much straight radio to radio (with maybe a bounce off the ionosphere). That results in faster reaction.
 

dlwtrunked

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
2,381
No. The issue is that they use IP data. IP data makes a lot of hops through the network. Router to router until it gets where it is going. Each time is passes through a router, it delays the data. Those delays can add up to a lot of lost money if they don't complete trades fast enough. While they are waiting for the packets to bounce through the network, another trader with a shorter path can snipe the lower price.

The benefit of HF radio is that they can haul data over longer distances much faster than fiber/IP links. It's pretty much straight radio to radio (with maybe a bounce off the ionosphere). That results in faster reaction.
Add in that unless it is a route going directly to the other location, fiber/IP goes non-direct and via other locations adding to the time. And the last thing one would want is to used geostationary satellites...a minimum of about 1/4 second lost just in that path...a real time and money loser. For others not catching the main point, the issue is about time and even milliseconds are money lost due to bids lost. The messages send this would not be normal English communications but also be digitally coded to be as brief as possible to get through as fast as possible --immediately that eliminates IP coding.
 

AK9R

Lead Wiki Manager and almost an Awesome Moderator
Super Moderator
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
9,963
Location
Central Indiana
Those delays can add up to a lot of lost money if they don't complete trades fast enough.
I read somewhere that the time differences between using the traditional IP network vs. using HF radio are on the order of milliseconds. Seems insignificant to those who think of dollars in thousands or tens of thousands. But, for those who think of dollars in terms of billions or tens of billions, getting a few millisecond advantage over your competitor adds up very quickly.

As Senator Dirksen once said: "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." And, as many have pointed out, when it comes to lobbying the Federal government, money talks.
 

BinaryMode

Blondie Once Said To Call Her But Never Answerd
Joined
Jul 3, 2023
Messages
848
Location
75 parsecs away
That's all very interesting, but one has to wonder if using a platform like E*Trade or whatever has any merit then? LOL I mean, it seems like things are just fine now with modern day technology, you know? But I can certainly understand the latency aspect of it all. Perhaps the blockchain could play a roll? I mean, investors trade crypto each and every single day. Though, the change in price is proabbly more like in the minutes per a few dollars here and there I'm sure.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
25,291
Location
United States
That's all very interesting, but one has to wonder if using a platform like E*Trade or whatever has any merit then? LOL I mean, it seems like things are just fine now with modern day technology, you know? But I can certainly understand the latency aspect of it all. Perhaps the blockchain could play a roll? I mean, investors trade crypto each and every single day. Though, the change in price is proabbly more like in the minutes per a few dollars here and there I'm sure.

E*Trade is aimed at average Joe consumer looking to make a quick buck during lunch.

It is not what large traders use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top