FCC proposes changes to 'outdated technical restrictions' (Nov '23)

[a417]

Link to article.

(indirect link to) FCC Fact sheet.

If this is being discussed elsewhere on RR, i apologize - and can we consolidate it?

 

[a417]

I don't know why I thought these earlier proposals were discussed here. Were FCC WT Docket 16-239 and RM 11-708 not brought up for discussion many years ago? Maybe I'm wrong, it was over a decade ago.

 

[GlobalNorth]

I recall them being discussed in general. When... I cannot recall.

 

[AK9R]

This proposal has been rattling around the halls of the FCC since at least 2013. If it was discussed here in the intervening 10 years, I imagine the thread(s) has/have long since died and been locked.

I am glad that the FCC is going to finally give this some consideration. However, since WT Docket 16-239 is one of many items on the FCC's agenda for their November open meeting, I'm only cautiously optimistic that anything will be done. Removing "outdated" amateur radio restrictions is just one of seven items on the agenda. November 2023 Open Meeting Agenda

Also, I've seen some online comments from folks who may not understand the FCC Chairwoman's "bolstering amateur radio" statement. The FCC's symbol limits for amateur radio HF data transmissions have been holding back that segment of amateur radio. Removing those limits would "bolster" amateur radio's ability to send large amounts of data over HF. This could be useful in an emergency. Of course, it could be useful for a lot of uses outside of emergencies, so removing the limits requires careful consideration.

 

[mmckenna]

ECFS

Federal Communication Commission Electronic Comment Filing System

www.fcc.gov

At least a few hams are paying attention.

I understand what this commenter is saying. But I don't agree that we need to hobble amateur radio to protect CW.
My own opinion is that amateur radio is stuck in keeping a bunch of old technology relevant when technology has long since moved on.

Yeah, I know, "CW, give me a spark and a long piece of wire and I'll talk around the world. "

One of my personal frustrations with amateur radio is that we have to cater to the old technology, all while claiming it's a modern and relevant radio service that is going to step in during major emergencies.

Someone needs to throw some chlorine in the ham radio pool, for Pete's sake.



Added in edit:
Jeeze, now I'm going to have the ham radio geezer patrol on their hamabouts chasing me around shaking their canes at me. I'd better watch my back…. I'm such a damn whipper-snapper. I can hear them now, yelling at me to stay off their lawn.

 

[AK9R]

My own opinion is that amateur radio is stuck in keeping a bunch of old technology relevant when technology has long since moved on.

If people are still using the "old technology", should we change the rules in a way that forces them out?

I've been in the thick of these sorts of issues. I was once a member of the rules-making board for a nationwide amateur road racing organization. The guys with Austin Healey Sprites and MG Midgets (1950s-1960s technology) did not want to be run out by guys with newer cars that had 1980s-1990s technology. The balancing act for the board I was on was to let the newer cars in without obsoleting the older cars. I've been away from that pursuit for about 10 years and couldn't help but notice that one class at the national championship race that used to be dominated old British sports cars was completely overcome this year by Hondas and Mazdas. I suspect that the guys with old British sports cars either retired or are now entering vintage races.

At one time, there was a proposal to regulate the bands by bandwidth. For example, the lower part of 40m would be reserved for narrow bandwidth modes like CW. The middle part would be wide bandwidth digital modes. The upper part would be reserved for "phone" (sideband and AM). That proposal was not popular. Of course, now that we have narrow bandwidth digital modes like FT8 and FT4, where would they fit in a regulate by bandwidth approach?

I need to spend some time studying the current proposal to understand the impact. I would not want to see the bands overrun with wide data modes. But, in the end, we all need to get along and find our niche.

One other point that usually gets brought up is the automated stations usually attributed to Winlink. Lifting the symbol rate and automated stations are two different issues. Conflating the two does not help the FCC understand what needs to be done.

 

[mmckenna]

But, in the end, we all need to get along and find our niche.

Exactly.

Advancing the hobby is what we want. Jamming a stick in the ground and insisting that ham radio cannot move forward because of what worked 122 years ago is silly.

Finding a space to keep CW = good plan.
Finding a space to allow newer technology = good plan.

Knowing that whatever they do, 50% of all ham radio operators will be convinced that it is "the end of the hobby" is inevitable. Might as well just rip that bandaid off and get it over with.

 

[KF0NYL]

I know the US military learned their lessons the hard way about not using CW. It bit them in the rear in Afghanistan and at least once with the Pacific fleet.

I agree that there is room for CW and modern technology.

 

[AK9R]

FCC Commissioners unanimously voted yesterday to amend the Amateur Radio Service rules to replace the baud rate limit on the Amateur HF bands with a 2.8 kHz bandwidth limit to permit greater flexibility in data communications. The new rules will have to be published and then time will be allowed for public comment before the new rules take effect.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-93A1.pdf

ARRL article on the topic: ARRL Hails FCC Action to Remove Symbol Rate Restrictions

 

[nd5y]

Also on the main FCC web site

FCC Amends Amateur Radio Rules for Greater Flexibility

The Commission adopts this R&O and FNPRM to eliminate the baud rate limitation and establish a bandwidth limitation in certain amateur bands. The item also proposes removal of the baud rate limitation in several additional bands.

www.fcc.gov

 

[mmckenna]

Knowing that whatever they do, 50% of all ham radio operators will be convinced that it is "the end of the hobby" is inevitable. Might as well just rip that bandaid off and get it over with.

And thank the Lord that the FCC ripped that bandaid off quickly.

Waiting to see if it really is "ThE ENd of thE HoBbYiez!!, OHHH EMMM GEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

You uptight hams better sellz all your raydeoz now so you can get the best price. Let me know, I'll give you a $1 per pound for useable radio equipment. 50¢ a pound if it smells like cigarette smoke and disappointments.

 

[kb9mwr]

This proposal has been rattling around the halls of the FCC since at least 2013. If it was discussed here in the intervening 10 years, I imagine the thread(s) has/have long since died and been locked.

I am glad that the FCC is going to finally give this some consideration. However, since WT Docket 16-239 is one of many items on the FCC's agenda for their November open meeting, I'm only cautiously optimistic that anything will be done. Removing "outdated" amateur radio restrictions is just one of seven items on the agenda. November 2023 Open Meeting Agenda

Also, I've seen some online comments from folks who may not understand the FCC Chairwoman's "bolstering amateur radio" statement. The FCC's symbol limits for amateur radio HF data transmissions have been holding back that segment of amateur radio. Removing those limits would "bolster" amateur radio's ability to send large amounts of data over HF. This could be useful in an emergency. Of course, it could be useful for a lot of uses outside of emergencies, so removing the limits requires careful consideration.

Actually longer than that. In 2006 the HSMM working group proposed it.. then later the ARRL withdraw the request due to the memebrship backlash.

And really even longer sort of. The FCC considered these regulations were in need of a major overhaul and in 1976 introduced the “Regulation by Bandwidth” Docket 20777. The FCC eventually abandoned the modernization attempt after a a long campaign against it waged by the ARRL.

There was a desire by some radio amateurs in the late 1970’s to restrict the bandwidth of digital data transmissions but any form of “Regulation by Bandwidth” was considered anathema. This resulted in the introduction in 1980 of a Symbol Rate restriction on digital transmissions (avoiding the dreaded words “Bandwidth Restriction”). This has crippled amateur radio data communications ever since, preventing amateurs using modern modes.

What is more of a hinderance really to me is how we classify our transmissions as voice (which includes digital voice), image or data.. and how different rules apply simply because of what we are transporting. It makes no real correlation to technical characteristics but simply what type of information is being transmitted.

If the FCC wants to carve out different rules to promote development then less restrictions for spread spectrum (for example) based transport (be that voice, data or image) would be logical.

 

[AK9R]

And thank the Lord that the FCC ripped that bandaid off quickly.

Not so fast, Mr. Bandaid Ripper.

The proposal won't go into effect until 30 days after it's published in the Federal Register. It could be January 2024 before it goes into effect.

 

[nd5y]

It's not in the FR today. It will appear here when it's published.

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.federalregister.gov

 

[mmckenna]

Not so fast, Mr. Bandaid Ripper.

The proposal won't go into effect until 30 days after it's published in the Federal Register. It could be January 2024 before it goes into effect.

Yeah, I know, but the clock is running. I'm sure there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth from both sides, though.

 

[buddrousa]

@mmckenna
You left out the ones that are pull their dippers down show their hinnies