Bill introduced to replace HF symbol rate limit with bandwidth limit | Hacker News Reader

Bill introduced to replace HF symbol rate limit with bandwidth limit

arrl.org

83 pointsnvahalik40 comments

> 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?

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.

Yes, true freedom, where no one can do anything because the entire situation is a melt-down mess!

literally 2.4GHz WiFi in any apartment complex or condo

but if there was no regulation we could increase the transmit power and have better signal!

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.

Uh, that is not what the comment you are relying to likely meant.

The issue in apartments is TOO much power, not too little.

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.

Care to elaborate?

Edit: prior poster elaborated after I wrote this comment.

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.

Isn't that the point?

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/

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.

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.

Late edit: s/broadband/bandwidth in the last sentence. That was a remnant from an unsubmitted edit, but I think my point got across.

The bill seems to be ill-defined. 2.8kHz at 3dB point? 6dB? What are the limits for -40dB? -60dB?

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.

Measuring bandwidth at the 3db point is the standard measure. The other arbitrary points you mention are covered by existing regulations on spurious emissions.

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...

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.

This bill is dead in the water, it was introduces right before the end of the term so there is no chance that it will come up for a vote. It would have to be reintroduced next term.

That is true, but looking back at a lot of legislation, dealing with amateur radio, they don't seem to go anywhere. The last thing that actually had a chance was the HOA antenna reform.

There are more HAMs today than ever. If the ARRL were serious about policy reform, they would harness those Hams and the many vendors, etc instead of wasting money on a lobbyist.

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.

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?

It appears the ARRL spent $92k on lobbying, is that a ridiculous amount? Am I missing something here?

I doubt that's even an FTE.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Been there. There are some fun ways to do DX in a small apartment. I'd be happy to chat about it anytime if you'd like ideas or just to commiserate over the difficulties.

How should I get in touch?

hn @ myusername . com

That’s a bargain for the amount of spectrum allocated for radio amateurs.

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/

> 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.

9cm is absolutely not gone. You must be misinformed. FCC gave up on killing it after massive opposition.

http://www.arrl.org/band-plan

Hm? I thought the FCC's position now was that it could continue to be used on a secondary basis until the FCC auctioned it off. The to 50MHz have been auctioned off and are now out of amateur use.

https://www.arrl.org/3-ghz-band

That’s worse than I recalled. Disappointing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com