[HN Gopher] Bill introduced to replace HF symbol rate limit with...
___________________________________________________________________
Bill introduced to replace HF symbol rate limit with bandwidth
limit
Author : nvahalik
Score : 64 points
Date : 2022-12-24 14:28 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.arrl.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.arrl.org)
| rektord wrote:
| The bill seems to be ill-defined. 2.8kHz at 3dB point? 6dB? What
| are the limits for -40dB? -60dB?
| teeray wrote:
| Measuring bandwidth at the 3db point is the standard measure.
| The other arbitrary points you mention are covered by existing
| regulations on spurious emissions.
| teraflop wrote:
| The bill is not a regulation itself, but merely directs the FCC
| to _create_ a suitable relation that implements the intent of
| Congress. So it 's not necessary to specify every last detail.
|
| Presumably this would be covered by existing rules and
| definitions, such as 47 CFR 97.3(a)(8):
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.3
|
| which doesn't constrain the shape of the emitted spectrum at
| any particular point, but just defines the bandwidth as
| whatever contains roughly 99% of the _total_ emitted energy.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| > But the Commission questioned whether any bandwidth limit was
| needed in its place.
|
| Seems pretty fundamental to their mission to regulate allocations
| by restricting spillover. Do we have nothing but clowns running
| the FCC now?
| netr0ute wrote:
| I don't know, but if I were in charge of the FCC, I'd purge
| most such rules and instead bask in the glow of true freedom.
| womod wrote:
| Have a listen to USA CB Channel 6 (27.015 MHz / 27105 KHz) if
| you'd like a taste of what true freedom is like. Best way to
| listen in without an actual receiver is a WebSDR, here's
| one[1] that can tune to it.
|
| [1] - http://kiwisdr1.sdrutah.org:8073/
| rektide wrote:
| Yes, true freedom, where no one can do anything because the
| entire situation is a melt-down mess!
| netr0ute wrote:
| Isn't that the point?
| ronsor wrote:
| literally 2.4GHz WiFi in any apartment complex or condo
| tomn wrote:
| but if there was no regulation we could increase the
| transmit power and have better signal!
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Exactly, by actually taking advantage of advances in RF
| and information theory since the Communications Act of
| 1934. Which we can't do at the moment.
| lazide wrote:
| Uh, that is not what the comment you are relying to
| likely meant.
|
| The issue in apartments is TOO much power, not too
| little.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| I know that's not what he meant, but his thesis is wrong.
| The law is written to impose artificial restrictions on
| things like power, antenna gain, and symbol rates, and
| those restrictions are actively counterproductive.
|
| Both amateur and commercial developers are forbidden from
| using the best available technology to use the RF
| spectrum as efficiently as possible.
| lazide wrote:
| Care to elaborate?
|
| Edit: prior poster elaborated after I wrote this comment.
| tomn wrote:
| If an individual increases their TX power it would help
| them, but make others' experience worse. In a situation
| like an apartment block, if everyone increased their TX
| power then everyone would have a worse experience.
|
| The point of this specific regulation is to prevent
| tragedy of the commons in a shared band -- if you want
| fewer restrictions go ahead and license your own
| spectrum; it wont be cheap.
|
| If anything, it should be responding to new technology by
| encouraging their use to make use of shared bands more
| efficient, for example by reducing the power limit and
| restricting the use of inefficient modulation schemes.
|
| edit: I know the article was about symbol rates, and I
| would agree that a symbol rate limit is silly, but you're
| responding to my comment which was just about the power
| limit.
| BenjiWiebe wrote:
| I'm 99% sure they meant no bandwidth restrictions per
| transmission within a band. You'd still have the rules about
| not causing interference etc.
|
| They absolutely aren't considering letting amateur radio use
| all the spectrum.
| teeray wrote:
| It feels like there's some confusion over the overloaded term
| "bandwidth" here. The bandwidth limit in place of the symbol
| rate is 2.8 kHz. As in, you can use any symbol rate you like as
| long as your emissions do not exceed 2.8 kHz of space in the
| band when measured from the 3 dB mark.
|
| I feel like the intended use of the word "broadband" in this
| context was the more commonplace (but imprecise) "data rate"
| definition.
| [deleted]
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| I have a serious problem with the ARRL, so much so that I get a
| strong feeling of fraud.
|
| Check out the 990, they spend a ridiculous amount of money on
| government relations and lobbyist, but they haven't accomplished
| anything in decades.
|
| https://www.arrl.org/files/file/ODV/990%20TAX%20RETURN%20%20...
| wyldfire wrote:
| I'm completely absent any other context about ARRL - it seems
| like this is an accomplishment and one that likely was the
| result of (expensive) lobbying.
| jlarocco wrote:
| It's nonsense to claim the ARRL "haven't accomplished anything
| in decades". In the recent past, HAM radio has kept the
| spectrum allocated to it, and even gained small amounts, in the
| face of massive commercial competition. Keeping the HAM
| spectrum open is one of the biggest priorities for ARRL.
|
| Also, it's very shortsighted to complain about "Total lobbying
| expenditures" of $450k over 5 years. For context, the
| commercial companies competeing for spectrum have spent
| _billions_. https://www.comparitech.com/internet-providers/isp-
| lobbying/
| rsaxvc wrote:
| > In the recent past, ham radio has kept the spectrum
| allocated to it...
|
| The 13cm band has lost more than half its bandwidth, cutting
| the band in two. 9cm is gone. I'm sure it would be worse
| without ARRL though.
| hakfoo wrote:
| I feel like they would almost _have_ to be a "lobby for their
| lives" organization.
|
| I'm sure Congress is constantly under assault from commercial
| outfits who covet spectrum that's "just being used by a bunch
| of boring 90-year-old hams". Being able to maintain the status
| quo against rich and politically powerful telecom lobbies is an
| impressive feat.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| It's not so much what they are lobbying on it's what they are
| able to accomplish. The ARRL has not accomplished meaningful
| legislation early in decades.
|
| Maybe I am making progress, they appear to have fired their
| lobbyist after years of not achieving any goal
|
| https://disclosurespreview.house.gov/ld/ldxmlrelease/2021/2T.
| ..
|
| You can search for the publicly available lobbying disclosure
| reports that every lobbyist is required to file.
|
| Don't take my word for it: Add up the amount of money that
| the lobbyist is claiming that the ARRL is paying them each
| year. Then compare that to their 990. The numbers don't
| match.
|
| Why?
| ampere wrote:
| It appears the ARRL spent $92k on lobbying, is that a
| ridiculous amount? Am I missing something here?
| teeray wrote:
| That's a bargain for the amount of spectrum allocated for
| radio amateurs.
| panzagl wrote:
| I doubt that's even an FTE.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| That's a lot better than what they used to spend. When I
| looked at the 990s for previous years, I saw they were
| spending a lot of money on lobbying for weren't getting
| anything for it, or worse they were lobbying for something
| they don't That's a lot better than what they used to spend.
| When I looked at the 990s for previous years, I saw they were
| spending a lot of money on lobbying but weren't getting
| anything for it, or worse they were lobbying for something
| they don't need.
|
| For example, amateur radio operator day. I spent a lot of
| money on a lobbyist to try to get a day designated by
| Congress. Why?
| ampere wrote:
| While I agree with you that an "amateur radio operator day"
| is sillyness. It's worth keeping in mind that the Amateur
| radio community still has a LOT of valuable spectrum to
| use. We have lost spectrum recently in the 3.5Ghz band, but
| sadly that's also a band that goes unused by a lot of radio
| amateurs.
|
| For a hobby like amateur radio, defending what we have
| today is a vital and important role, even if expansion
| isn't accomplished. There's no doubt lots of value to be
| had for private companies gaining use over our spectrum.
|
| Defending the majority of we have today is a worthily
| accomplishment in it's own right.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| I think it is a hobby worth defending, it is a hobby
| worth pursuing, and as a ham radio operator, I would like
| to see ARTL do a significant more work in legislation.
|
| Based on the lobbying disclosure reports for their
| lobbyists over the past five years, and the 990s, I
| believe they have wasted significant amounts of money
| accomplishing nothing.
|
| We NEED to open up more spectrum, encourage people to
| take up a hobby, teach radio theory, and operation in
| high school, lower the barrier of entry for getting a
| radio, there are many, many things that we need to do.
|
| Wasting money on lobbyists while not achieving any
| proactive goal, such as a ham radio operator day, and
| spending $5000 a month to try to get that, is not good.
| BenjiWiebe wrote:
| Not that I'm against having more spectrum, but do we
| really NEED more spectrum?
|
| There's no way ham radio can have enough bandwidth to be
| the Internet, after all. And there's plenty of space for
| communications and experimentation as is, with lots of
| different bands with different characteristics.
| wbl wrote:
| Agreed on promotion. I have an extra ticket and a nice
| radio but barely use it in part due to apartment in part
| due to inexperience. More activities aimed at getting on
| the air would be useful.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-24 23:01 UTC)