Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by _whiteCaps_ | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

_whiteCaps_·

I like to think that I helped with this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37394599

View on HN

Given a lack of evidence to the contrary, I’m going to think that too.

Great work!

The FCC has been working on this since at least 2016, in response to a petition from the ARRL in 2013.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-16-96A1_Rcd.pdf

I would love to live in a world where the FCC could update outdated regulation within 50 days in response to a random internet comment to a commissioner...but that's not this universe.

The parent comment doesn't say they think they're solely responsible, but just that it might have helped. Given the positive response from the commissioner who posted the AMA that they already supported it, I don't think it's unreasonable that it might have been a bit of a reminder or motivation to prioritize it a bit more.

Government that works never works for the people.

Government that works only works for the cleptocracy.

Never never never aks for government that works.

What does this comment actually mean? Replace with a 2.8khz bandwidth limit?

Edit: I think this comment helps explain it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38053342

Out of curiosity, do you happen to know what kind of throughput we could expect on a simplex 2.8/2.5khz carrier? Assuming something like -75dbm SNR. I'm not familiar with anything modern that does bandwidths that small.

I ran the calculations for LTE in a FM radio station allocation a few years back and came up with something like 1.4Mbps on a CAT4 radio (no idea what modulation and FEC levels I assumed).

A Pactor 4 modem (which at 1800 baud will become legal after this) can do 5512.5 bps in 2.4 kHz with 32QAM.

https://www.p4dragon.com/pactor-4.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com