11 ms·

FCC Temporary Waiver Permits Higher Symbol Rate Data for Hurricane Ida Traffic

196 points by 7402 5y ago

h2odragon 5y ago
I'm sure we all thank the FCC for its gracious permission here. > In 2016, in response to an ARRL petition for rulemaking, the FCC proposed to remove the symbol rate limitations, which it tentatively concluded had become unnecessary due to advances in modulation techniques and no longer served a useful purpose. That proceeding, WT Docket 16-239, is still pending. I'm certainly grateful that the custodians of such a valuable public resource as "radio communication" are taking such a deliberate, measured approach to their jobs. Just imagine the horror and chaos that could descend if we allowed higher bandwith digital comms over these frequencies... People might send porn! (This is sarcastic, in case the bots need the hint)
- lolthishuman 5y ago
  Why is it regulated anyway? What’s the balance at play? Limits?
  - CobaltFire 5y ago
    It's limited because they don't want to create a defacto lower limit on what it costs to start using HAM bands. That said, I agree it's taking too long. The technology for the higher symbol rates is now cheap enough to be a non-issue.
  - pgt 5y ago
    Presumably for the same reason that GPS time signals had (have?) pseudorandom noise added: to prevent an adversary from using your own systems to steer missiles with high precision.
    - madengr 5y ago
      GPS uses PN codes for the timing difference measurement, as well as allowing multiple satellites on a single channel. I believe the dithering (selective availability) was turned off years ago, thus the L2 channel ads only ionospheric correction (which can also be accomplished with local sources). The FCC symbol rate limitation needs to go. It’s a hindrance on HAM radio. Just regulate it by bandwidth, or better yet EIRP PSD, but that would be tough to control.
      - jaywalk 5y ago
        Yes, Selective Availability was turned off in 2000 and will never be re-enabled. In fact, the latest generation of GPS satellites do not even support Selective Availability: https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/modernization/sa/ https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/modernization/sa/
    - morcheeba 5y ago
      PRN (Pseudorandom noise) in the context of GPS is just a coding standard - it's just CDMA (aka Spread Spectrum) and it allows all satellite to use the same frequency. A side benefit is that the signals can be below the noise floor, and when you apply the gain from decoding, it rises the signal above the noise floor (exactly like how you can pick out a voice in a crowded bar if you know what that voice sounds like).
  - makomk 5y ago
    There's very limited bandwidth available on most of the ham radio bands and other users don't want people taking up large chunks of bandwidth with wide, high-bitrate data signals and making the bands unusable for everyone else.
  - chociej 5y ago
    To get one of the big things out of the way: bandwidth. The FCC don't want anyone taking up big chunks of spectrum without using a license or service appropriate to that use. Notably, they don't want a few users to be able to chew up entire bands. But there's a philosophical part to the discussion also. The tradeoff goes like this: hams get some really nice spectrum assignments, low fees, self-regulation, experimental modes and techniques, etc. In exchange, they can't use the amateur radio service commercially or for non-personal aims, and specifically they are expected to focus mostly on learning, community interaction, public service, experimentation, and so on. They also want amateur modes to be somewhat approachable, i.e. not requiring exotic or expensive hardware, necessarily. Should an operator wish to use the radio spectrum for commercial or highly productive use, especially one requiring significant bandwidth, secrecy, exclusivity, etc, they are expected to use a different license / service more appropriate to those needs. Basically: Tinkering, chit-chat, community service, narrow bandwidths => amateur radio Anything else => get a different license To that end it was long the FCC's stance that high symbol rates sort of implied that you're going outside the purposes of the amateur radio service. With digital communication having developed as much as it has, though, it's reasonable that hams want to be able to do more interesting things with digital modes, which generally means higher symbol rates.
    - madengr 5y ago
      I’m wondering if you could legalese around it since a PRN is a chip, not a symbol, as the former has no information. So one could spread a low symbol rate into a high chip rate.
    - burnished 5y ago
      Thanks for the additional context!
    - leephillips 5y ago
      An interesting twist to the regulations is that you're not allowed to use ham radio as a substitute for cell service. I never quite understood this rule, nor how it was to be enforced; but it would seem to place some limits on the permissible chit-chat. Also: no encryption.
  - nomel 5y ago
    Why is this downvoted? The purpose and limitations of RF bandwidth allocation isn’t exactly widely known.
    - h2odragon 5y ago
      Truly. I have philosophical problems with the existence of the FCC but there's a great deal of interesting and educational discussion to be had here. At the risk of delving further into conspiracy theory I suspect that may be a reason its downvoted; because there's room for debate. There's currently a lot of feeling that once the government is involved debate must be silenced.
      - geofft 5y ago
        I didn't downvote it, but I strongly suspect it was because of the sarcasm, the meta-sarcasm, and ultimately the unwillingness to believe that interesting opposing arguments might exist. That is, the post didn't encourage interesting and educational discussion, just derision. The merit of the resulting conversation was despite the initial post, not because of it.
  - VLM 5y ago
    Fcc part 97.101 "General Standards" (d): "No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal." Pitiful we have to encode "the golden rule" of treat others like you'd have them treat you into law, but here we are its in the CFR. As of 2021 no one has a technological answer to how to avoid various wide band digital technologies from interference against, well, absolutely everything else currently in use, without forcing everyone to operate in a channelized system with massive international coordination problems. The international part is a nightmare, what if, I donno, Bulgaria refuses to channelize? Nothing will work for anyone unless everyone cooperates. Wideband digital modes do NOT play well with others. There are channelized bands around 5 mhz (in the usa) and the FCC does relax quite a bit on wide open microwave bands, but people are going to request turning all of 20 meters into one single user digital channel, and to hell with everyone else currently using the band, apparently into infinity. Its an eternal meme. I guess the best analogy I can come up with, is you can zone land as a public park for people to picnic, but that doesn't mean the land is completely lawless, if you blast your music at 160 dB the police will arrest you for preventing everyone else from enjoying their picnic. We easily right now have the technological ability to turn the 20M band into a single channel, single user, very high speed digital path at 1500 watts. But that's a terrible idea, given the zillions of current users, local and international, who would be kicked off completely unable to operate.
- geofft 5y ago
  http://www.arrl.org/news/view/fcc-agrees-to-90-day-pause-in-consideration-of-wt-docket-16-239 http://www.arrl.org/news/view/fcc-agrees-to-90-day-pause-in-... > The Commission's proposed changes differed from the ARRL's initial filing and caused the ARRL to be concerned about possible interference to current users resulting from the deletion of the ARRL's requested 2.8 kHz bandwidth limitation. Due to those concerns the League filed comments with the FCC opposing the deletion of the requested bandwidth. The ARRL is asking the FCC to not drop the rule entirely.
lxe 5y ago
There are some papers on wideband / high speed HF communication techniques. Most applications are basically backup for military applications when satellite communication fails. I think it's an interesting topic, but with mesh networks and satellites, HF high speed links are not as relevant.
- CobaltFire 5y ago
  HF fills a different niche than mesh and satellite. Satellite has a reasonably high lower bound for implementation, and is reasonably easily disrupted. Mesh is reliant on a relatively high density of relays; typically you need nodes within a couple of miles of each other depending on terrain. HF allows for significantly larger mesh network node distances (with lower data rate) or much more robust communication that is harder to shut down.
- adrianpike 5y ago
  Got any links? I've been deep diving into NVIS lately and would love to have more reading material.
gorgoiler 5y ago
What’s the technology here? I’m amateur licensed and really in the market for a radio pager. Asynchronous short messages would really help me out.
- clipradiowallet 5y ago
  The TLDR is packet radio speed caps and frequency restrictions are being [temporarily] lifted for Ida-related communications. PS: the world needs more hams!
  - post_break 5y ago
    Maybe if the existing hams didn't gate keep. They are the perfect example of a hobby that is hostile to newcomers.
    - clipradiowallet 5y ago
      What do you mean? I ask as a ham myself..I took my exam [remotely] in 2020. So far all of my contacts in my area have been pretty warm greetings. I generally get the impression that existing hams like seeing new hams pop up. That said, I live in a very rural area, and imagine that more congested areas(cities) might be less welcoming of new traffic.
      - bityard 5y ago
        > and imagine that more congested areas(cities) might be less welcoming of new traffic. I live right next door to a very large metropolitan area and the advantage is that there is a lot of diversity in terms of who is on the air. I have 50 repeaters programmed into my dual-band radio and almost all of them some kind of regular activity from weekly nets to casual drive-time QSOs. Lots of older retired gentlemen of course but plenty of other stuff going on too.
    - progman32 5y ago
      (Not a ham - but thinking of becoming one): Are you referring to the exam, or something else? I find entrance exams are almost always orthogonal to actual performance (like tech interviews). I think it should be limited to verifying an understanding of safety and the law only. Everything else can be quickly and easily looked up if needed. If I make a fool of myself on the air that's on me. Take a look at the question pool: http://www.arrl.org/files/file/VEs/2019-2023%20General%20Class%20Pool%20Final%20with%20errata.pdf http://www.arrl.org/files/file/VEs/2019-2023%20General%20Cla... Say we limit the exam to subelements G0 (Safety), G1 (Commission's Rules), G2 (Operating Procedures), and G4 (Amateur Radio Practices). What's the downside? Why are we asking people about Digital circuits; amplifiers and oscillators (G7B), Analog and digital integrated circuits (ICs); memory; I/O devices; microwave ICs (MMICs); display devices; connectors; ferrite cores (G6B), etc? I agree it's useful information, but if all I want to do is operate my radio, why gatekeep on this other knowledge? Is my incomplete understanding blinding me?
tlrobinson 5y ago
Can anyone provide background on why there's a limit on symbol rate at all? Isn't bandwidth a more appropriate limit?
- wyager 5y ago
  Yes. Dumb historical decision. People have been trying to get it overturned for a while.
- topspin 5y ago
  It's just history and regulatory inertia. The rules were established when digital radio was nascent and available technology limited the modulation techniques that were feasible. Digital on some bands is regulated on bandwidth; the 70 cm band has a bandwidth limit of 100 kilohertz for "unspecified digital codes."
  - drmpeg 5y ago
    The 70 cm rule is the silliest. The limit for digital data is 100 kHz, but you can legally transmit 6 MHz wide analog television. Because wide bandwidth video is allowed, digital video modes like DVB-S, DVB-T and ATSC are also allowed. To get around the 100 kHz restriction for data, some folks are running links with 95% data and a low rate video sub-stream.
- VLM 5y ago
  There are some content regulations so transmitting "in the clear" for all to read is generally demanded by the .gov. Groundwave HF paths technologically don't have much of a symbol rate limit. You could talk from ND to SD using a quite fast symbol rate as long as its a groundwave path under 25 miles or so. There are limits, but they're huge. Skywave "ionosphere bounce" paths have massive multipath issues although slow enough symbol rates can make it thru without too much intersymbol interference. These paths are worldwide. Even with existing limits, its quite trivial to transmit a modulation that has too fast of a symbol rate for skywave / international paths. I guess I'm just pointing out the existing rate limits are "too high" often for international communication. You could turn 10M into some kind of short range local wifi I suppose, but all anyone more than a hundred miles away would hear would be noise / interference due to intersymbol interference and multipath. Supposedly, in my grandpa's day, the government regulated modulation method to a precise detailed level so if you're only allowed to transmit 45 baud ITU2 encoded rtty FSK, specifying a dozen of one or 12 of another is the same thing, just depends how you say it. Then they removed detailed mode regulation "do what you want, grandfathering in existing users". Regulation can take awhile to change with the times. Again, supposedly in my grandpa's day, wattmeters were not accurate enough to be useful so the government regulated DC input power because voltmeters and ammeters are accurate enough for a ballpark guess. See also peak power vs "peak envelope power" aka PEP measurements for analog single sideband voice. So bringing it back around, at one point symbol rate was a reasonable proxy for old fashioned rtty fsk bandwidth regulation.
spookthesunset 5y ago
They should figure out how to rework the regulations to limit bandwidth, not baud. The intent is to keep a few amateur radio operators from hogging a ton of the very limited HF spectrum. If somebody can figure out how to cram more data into a small slice of bandwidth, more power to them.
- p_j_w 5y ago
  It's been discussed. From the article: "In 2016, in response to an ARRL petition for rulemaking, the FCC proposed to remove the symbol rate limitations, which it tentatively concluded had become unnecessary due to advances in modulation techniques and no longer served a useful purpose. That proceeding, WT Docket 16-239, is still pending."
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    Decision pending for 5 years? That sounds... about right for the federal bureaucracy.
    - jonhohle 5y ago
      Not to get political, but it’s exactly this that makes me wonder if people understand what socialized services will turn into. Do people want DMV-like experiences for _more_ aspects of life?
      - rtpg 5y ago
        If you make a service universal you don't have to have that much paperwork. Hell of a lot easier to run a service based on "everyone gets it and we tax richer people more, since they also get it". Imagine if more services worked like a library rather than the DMV (granted libraries I guess check your address?). Imagine if going to a hospital involved checking your symptoms and not having to negotiate down prices. Imagine everyone having a ~0 cost bank account at the post office. Imagine having any form of recourse beyond posting to a forum thread for an administrative issue. And you do know that DMVs are miserable because they don't have the budget to be properly staffed right? The pain is self-inflicted. We could give money to governments without profit motives, or we can give money to corporations with profit motives. If it's a service that we actually want in society, the answer seems obvious to me.
jeffrogers 5y ago
Hoping municipalities around the country note that the amateur radio programs they've been depreciating over the last decade actually have a role to play in emergencies like major hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.
molticrystal 5y ago
I wonder how this compares to their previous statements and policies, because with a million people out of power and most communication systems offline, it does seem that charging people is just wrong, and the lack of the necessity of emergency communication provided by Amateurs was stated as a reason for them not exempting them from licensing fees. >The FCC also disagreed with those who argued that amateur radio licensees should be exempt from fees because of their public service contribution during emergencies and disasters. >“[W]e we are very much aware of these laudable and important services amateur radio licensees provide to the American public,” the FCC said, but noted that specific exemptions provided under Section 8 of the so-called “Ray Baum’s Act” requiring the FCC to assess the fees do not apply to amateur radio personal licenses. “Emergency communications, for example, are voluntary and are not required by our rules,” the FCC noted. “As we have noted previously, ‘[w]hile the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communications service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications, is one of the underlying principles of the amateur service, the amateur service is not an emergency radio service.’” [0] https://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-reduces-proposed-amateur-radio-application-fee-to-35 https://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-reduces-proposed-amateur-radio...
- finnh 5y ago
  I read the FCC as saying "we have to assess fees based on our charter/legislation" - ie, it is not discretionary given the language of the law.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    They have to assess fees for actual costs. The marginal cost of a database update that a human never reviews is $0. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4986/text#H23B4AC0C280645F9978904AE59FF5832 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4986...
    - jonhohle 5y ago
      But the aggregate cost to create and maintain that database is non-zero. That cost doesn’t scale at the same factor as licensees, but would still amortize to >$0.
b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago
I'd love to hear about the FCC seeking out and serving fines to anyone not ' licensed_' and transmitting with.. Several watts. How dare you do this with hardware from Amaz0on .. That you bought for this purpose and tried to make a difference.. Its unreal that we still think laws mean anything when the g0v cant keep anything running when its needed. Oh but take our test, prove you know the bands and Ohms law.. Then save people.
- b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago
  Everything I ever say just gets downvotes. No wonder people think HN is manipulated.. Cant see who does it, but I am reasonably sure bots operated by power uses blacklist users.. So they incrementally receive a score close or below zero. In fact I can't downvote anything, What a shame.
- pluto7777 5y ago
  You're allowed to make distress calls without a license. If it's between life or death, the rules change. Why wait for a real emergency to use your hardware though?

196 points by 7402 5y ago

I'm sure we all thank the FCC for its gracious permission here. > In 2016, in response to an ARRL petition for rulemaking, the FCC proposed to remove the symbol rate limitations, which it tentatively concluded had become unnecessary due to advances in modulation techniques and no longer served a useful purpose. That proceeding, WT Docket 16-239, is still pending. I'm certainly grateful that the custodians of such a valuable public resource as "radio communication" are taking such a deliberate, measured approach to their jobs. Just imagine the horror and chaos that could descend if we allowed higher bandwith digital comms over these frequencies... People might send porn! (This is sarcastic, in case the bots need the hint)

lolthishuman 5y ago
Why is it regulated anyway? What’s the balance at play? Limits?
- CobaltFire 5y ago
  It's limited because they don't want to create a defacto lower limit on what it costs to start using HAM bands. That said, I agree it's taking too long. The technology for the higher symbol rates is now cheap enough to be a non-issue.
- pgt 5y ago
  Presumably for the same reason that GPS time signals had (have?) pseudorandom noise added: to prevent an adversary from using your own systems to steer missiles with high precision.
  - madengr 5y ago
    GPS uses PN codes for the timing difference measurement, as well as allowing multiple satellites on a single channel. I believe the dithering (selective availability) was turned off years ago, thus the L2 channel ads only ionospheric correction (which can also be accomplished with local sources). The FCC symbol rate limitation needs to go. It’s a hindrance on HAM radio. Just regulate it by bandwidth, or better yet EIRP PSD, but that would be tough to control.
    - jaywalk 5y ago
      Yes, Selective Availability was turned off in 2000 and will never be re-enabled. In fact, the latest generation of GPS satellites do not even support Selective Availability: https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/modernization/sa/ https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/modernization/sa/
  - morcheeba 5y ago
    PRN (Pseudorandom noise) in the context of GPS is just a coding standard - it's just CDMA (aka Spread Spectrum) and it allows all satellite to use the same frequency. A side benefit is that the signals can be below the noise floor, and when you apply the gain from decoding, it rises the signal above the noise floor (exactly like how you can pick out a voice in a crowded bar if you know what that voice sounds like).
- makomk 5y ago
  There's very limited bandwidth available on most of the ham radio bands and other users don't want people taking up large chunks of bandwidth with wide, high-bitrate data signals and making the bands unusable for everyone else.
- chociej 5y ago
  To get one of the big things out of the way: bandwidth. The FCC don't want anyone taking up big chunks of spectrum without using a license or service appropriate to that use. Notably, they don't want a few users to be able to chew up entire bands. But there's a philosophical part to the discussion also. The tradeoff goes like this: hams get some really nice spectrum assignments, low fees, self-regulation, experimental modes and techniques, etc. In exchange, they can't use the amateur radio service commercially or for non-personal aims, and specifically they are expected to focus mostly on learning, community interaction, public service, experimentation, and so on. They also want amateur modes to be somewhat approachable, i.e. not requiring exotic or expensive hardware, necessarily. Should an operator wish to use the radio spectrum for commercial or highly productive use, especially one requiring significant bandwidth, secrecy, exclusivity, etc, they are expected to use a different license / service more appropriate to those needs. Basically: Tinkering, chit-chat, community service, narrow bandwidths => amateur radio Anything else => get a different license To that end it was long the FCC's stance that high symbol rates sort of implied that you're going outside the purposes of the amateur radio service. With digital communication having developed as much as it has, though, it's reasonable that hams want to be able to do more interesting things with digital modes, which generally means higher symbol rates.
  - madengr 5y ago
    I’m wondering if you could legalese around it since a PRN is a chip, not a symbol, as the former has no information. So one could spread a low symbol rate into a high chip rate.
  - burnished 5y ago
    Thanks for the additional context!
  - leephillips 5y ago
    An interesting twist to the regulations is that you're not allowed to use ham radio as a substitute for cell service. I never quite understood this rule, nor how it was to be enforced; but it would seem to place some limits on the permissible chit-chat. Also: no encryption.
- nomel 5y ago
  Why is this downvoted? The purpose and limitations of RF bandwidth allocation isn’t exactly widely known.
  - h2odragon 5y ago
    Truly. I have philosophical problems with the existence of the FCC but there's a great deal of interesting and educational discussion to be had here. At the risk of delving further into conspiracy theory I suspect that may be a reason its downvoted; because there's room for debate. There's currently a lot of feeling that once the government is involved debate must be silenced.
    - geofft 5y ago
      I didn't downvote it, but I strongly suspect it was because of the sarcasm, the meta-sarcasm, and ultimately the unwillingness to believe that interesting opposing arguments might exist. That is, the post didn't encourage interesting and educational discussion, just derision. The merit of the resulting conversation was despite the initial post, not because of it.
- VLM 5y ago
  Fcc part 97.101 "General Standards" (d): "No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal." Pitiful we have to encode "the golden rule" of treat others like you'd have them treat you into law, but here we are its in the CFR. As of 2021 no one has a technological answer to how to avoid various wide band digital technologies from interference against, well, absolutely everything else currently in use, without forcing everyone to operate in a channelized system with massive international coordination problems. The international part is a nightmare, what if, I donno, Bulgaria refuses to channelize? Nothing will work for anyone unless everyone cooperates. Wideband digital modes do NOT play well with others. There are channelized bands around 5 mhz (in the usa) and the FCC does relax quite a bit on wide open microwave bands, but people are going to request turning all of 20 meters into one single user digital channel, and to hell with everyone else currently using the band, apparently into infinity. Its an eternal meme. I guess the best analogy I can come up with, is you can zone land as a public park for people to picnic, but that doesn't mean the land is completely lawless, if you blast your music at 160 dB the police will arrest you for preventing everyone else from enjoying their picnic. We easily right now have the technological ability to turn the 20M band into a single channel, single user, very high speed digital path at 1500 watts. But that's a terrible idea, given the zillions of current users, local and international, who would be kicked off completely unable to operate.
geofft 5y ago
http://www.arrl.org/news/view/fcc-agrees-to-90-day-pause-in-consideration-of-wt-docket-16-239 http://www.arrl.org/news/view/fcc-agrees-to-90-day-pause-in-... > The Commission's proposed changes differed from the ARRL's initial filing and caused the ARRL to be concerned about possible interference to current users resulting from the deletion of the ARRL's requested 2.8 kHz bandwidth limitation. Due to those concerns the League filed comments with the FCC opposing the deletion of the requested bandwidth. The ARRL is asking the FCC to not drop the rule entirely.

lxe 5y ago

There are some papers on wideband / high speed HF communication techniques. Most applications are basically backup for military applications when satellite communication fails. I think it's an interesting topic, but with mesh networks and satellites, HF high speed links are not as relevant.

CobaltFire 5y ago
HF fills a different niche than mesh and satellite. Satellite has a reasonably high lower bound for implementation, and is reasonably easily disrupted. Mesh is reliant on a relatively high density of relays; typically you need nodes within a couple of miles of each other depending on terrain. HF allows for significantly larger mesh network node distances (with lower data rate) or much more robust communication that is harder to shut down.
adrianpike 5y ago
Got any links? I've been deep diving into NVIS lately and would love to have more reading material.

gorgoiler 5y ago

What’s the technology here? I’m amateur licensed and really in the market for a radio pager. Asynchronous short messages would really help me out.

clipradiowallet 5y ago
The TLDR is packet radio speed caps and frequency restrictions are being [temporarily] lifted for Ida-related communications. PS: the world needs more hams!
- post_break 5y ago
  Maybe if the existing hams didn't gate keep. They are the perfect example of a hobby that is hostile to newcomers.
  - clipradiowallet 5y ago
    What do you mean? I ask as a ham myself..I took my exam [remotely] in 2020. So far all of my contacts in my area have been pretty warm greetings. I generally get the impression that existing hams like seeing new hams pop up. That said, I live in a very rural area, and imagine that more congested areas(cities) might be less welcoming of new traffic.
    - bityard 5y ago
      > and imagine that more congested areas(cities) might be less welcoming of new traffic. I live right next door to a very large metropolitan area and the advantage is that there is a lot of diversity in terms of who is on the air. I have 50 repeaters programmed into my dual-band radio and almost all of them some kind of regular activity from weekly nets to casual drive-time QSOs. Lots of older retired gentlemen of course but plenty of other stuff going on too.
  - progman32 5y ago
    (Not a ham - but thinking of becoming one): Are you referring to the exam, or something else? I find entrance exams are almost always orthogonal to actual performance (like tech interviews). I think it should be limited to verifying an understanding of safety and the law only. Everything else can be quickly and easily looked up if needed. If I make a fool of myself on the air that's on me. Take a look at the question pool: http://www.arrl.org/files/file/VEs/2019-2023%20General%20Class%20Pool%20Final%20with%20errata.pdf http://www.arrl.org/files/file/VEs/2019-2023%20General%20Cla... Say we limit the exam to subelements G0 (Safety), G1 (Commission's Rules), G2 (Operating Procedures), and G4 (Amateur Radio Practices). What's the downside? Why are we asking people about Digital circuits; amplifiers and oscillators (G7B), Analog and digital integrated circuits (ICs); memory; I/O devices; microwave ICs (MMICs); display devices; connectors; ferrite cores (G6B), etc? I agree it's useful information, but if all I want to do is operate my radio, why gatekeep on this other knowledge? Is my incomplete understanding blinding me?

tlrobinson 5y ago

Can anyone provide background on why there's a limit on symbol rate at all? Isn't bandwidth a more appropriate limit?

wyager 5y ago
Yes. Dumb historical decision. People have been trying to get it overturned for a while.
topspin 5y ago
It's just history and regulatory inertia. The rules were established when digital radio was nascent and available technology limited the modulation techniques that were feasible. Digital on some bands is regulated on bandwidth; the 70 cm band has a bandwidth limit of 100 kilohertz for "unspecified digital codes."
- drmpeg 5y ago
  The 70 cm rule is the silliest. The limit for digital data is 100 kHz, but you can legally transmit 6 MHz wide analog television. Because wide bandwidth video is allowed, digital video modes like DVB-S, DVB-T and ATSC are also allowed. To get around the 100 kHz restriction for data, some folks are running links with 95% data and a low rate video sub-stream.
VLM 5y ago
There are some content regulations so transmitting "in the clear" for all to read is generally demanded by the .gov. Groundwave HF paths technologically don't have much of a symbol rate limit. You could talk from ND to SD using a quite fast symbol rate as long as its a groundwave path under 25 miles or so. There are limits, but they're huge. Skywave "ionosphere bounce" paths have massive multipath issues although slow enough symbol rates can make it thru without too much intersymbol interference. These paths are worldwide. Even with existing limits, its quite trivial to transmit a modulation that has too fast of a symbol rate for skywave / international paths. I guess I'm just pointing out the existing rate limits are "too high" often for international communication. You could turn 10M into some kind of short range local wifi I suppose, but all anyone more than a hundred miles away would hear would be noise / interference due to intersymbol interference and multipath. Supposedly, in my grandpa's day, the government regulated modulation method to a precise detailed level so if you're only allowed to transmit 45 baud ITU2 encoded rtty FSK, specifying a dozen of one or 12 of another is the same thing, just depends how you say it. Then they removed detailed mode regulation "do what you want, grandfathering in existing users". Regulation can take awhile to change with the times. Again, supposedly in my grandpa's day, wattmeters were not accurate enough to be useful so the government regulated DC input power because voltmeters and ammeters are accurate enough for a ballpark guess. See also peak power vs "peak envelope power" aka PEP measurements for analog single sideband voice. So bringing it back around, at one point symbol rate was a reasonable proxy for old fashioned rtty fsk bandwidth regulation.

spookthesunset 5y ago

They should figure out how to rework the regulations to limit bandwidth, not baud. The intent is to keep a few amateur radio operators from hogging a ton of the very limited HF spectrum. If somebody can figure out how to cram more data into a small slice of bandwidth, more power to them.

p_j_w 5y ago
It's been discussed. From the article: "In 2016, in response to an ARRL petition for rulemaking, the FCC proposed to remove the symbol rate limitations, which it tentatively concluded had become unnecessary due to advances in modulation techniques and no longer served a useful purpose. That proceeding, WT Docket 16-239, is still pending."
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  Decision pending for 5 years? That sounds... about right for the federal bureaucracy.
  - jonhohle 5y ago
    Not to get political, but it’s exactly this that makes me wonder if people understand what socialized services will turn into. Do people want DMV-like experiences for _more_ aspects of life?
    - rtpg 5y ago
      If you make a service universal you don't have to have that much paperwork. Hell of a lot easier to run a service based on "everyone gets it and we tax richer people more, since they also get it". Imagine if more services worked like a library rather than the DMV (granted libraries I guess check your address?). Imagine if going to a hospital involved checking your symptoms and not having to negotiate down prices. Imagine everyone having a ~0 cost bank account at the post office. Imagine having any form of recourse beyond posting to a forum thread for an administrative issue. And you do know that DMVs are miserable because they don't have the budget to be properly staffed right? The pain is self-inflicted. We could give money to governments without profit motives, or we can give money to corporations with profit motives. If it's a service that we actually want in society, the answer seems obvious to me.

jeffrogers 5y ago

Hoping municipalities around the country note that the amateur radio programs they've been depreciating over the last decade actually have a role to play in emergencies like major hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.

molticrystal 5y ago

I wonder how this compares to their previous statements and policies, because with a million people out of power and most communication systems offline, it does seem that charging people is just wrong, and the lack of the necessity of emergency communication provided by Amateurs was stated as a reason for them not exempting them from licensing fees. >The FCC also disagreed with those who argued that amateur radio licensees should be exempt from fees because of their public service contribution during emergencies and disasters. >“[W]e we are very much aware of these laudable and important services amateur radio licensees provide to the American public,” the FCC said, but noted that specific exemptions provided under Section 8 of the so-called “Ray Baum’s Act” requiring the FCC to assess the fees do not apply to amateur radio personal licenses. “Emergency communications, for example, are voluntary and are not required by our rules,” the FCC noted. “As we have noted previously, ‘[w]hile the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communications service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications, is one of the underlying principles of the amateur service, the amateur service is not an emergency radio service.’” [0] https://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-reduces-proposed-amateur-radio-application-fee-to-35 https://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-reduces-proposed-amateur-radio...

finnh 5y ago
I read the FCC as saying "we have to assess fees based on our charter/legislation" - ie, it is not discretionary given the language of the law.
- xxpor 5y ago
  They have to assess fees for actual costs. The marginal cost of a database update that a human never reviews is $0. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4986/text#H23B4AC0C280645F9978904AE59FF5832 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4986...
  - jonhohle 5y ago
    But the aggregate cost to create and maintain that database is non-zero. That cost doesn’t scale at the same factor as licensees, but would still amortize to >$0.

b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago

I'd love to hear about the FCC seeking out and serving fines to anyone not ' licensed_' and transmitting with.. Several watts. How dare you do this with hardware from Amaz0on .. That you bought for this purpose and tried to make a difference.. Its unreal that we still think laws mean anything when the g0v cant keep anything running when its needed. Oh but take our test, prove you know the bands and Ohms law.. Then save people.

b0tzzzzzzman 5y ago
Everything I ever say just gets downvotes. No wonder people think HN is manipulated.. Cant see who does it, but I am reasonably sure bots operated by power uses blacklist users.. So they incrementally receive a score close or below zero. In fact I can't downvote anything, What a shame.
pluto7777 5y ago
You're allowed to make distress calls without a license. If it's between life or death, the rules change. Why wait for a real emergency to use your hardware though?