6 ms·
Bill introduced to replace HF symbol rate limit with bandwidth limit
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago> 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?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- netr0ute 4y agoI 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.
- rektide 4y agoYes, true freedom, where no one can do anything because the entire situation is a melt-down mess!
- ronsor 4y agoliterally 2.4GHz WiFi in any apartment complex or condo
- tomn 4y agobut if there was no regulation we could increase the transmit power and have better signal!
- CamperBob2 4y agoExactly, 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 4y agoUh, that is not what the comment you are relying to likely meant. The issue in apartments is TOO much power, not too little.
- CamperBob2 4y agoI 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 4y agoCare to elaborate? Edit: prior poster elaborated after I wrote this comment.
- tomn 4y agoIf 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.
- netr0ute 4y agoIsn't that the point?
- womod 4y agoHave 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/ http://kiwisdr1.sdrutah.org:8073/
- BenjiWiebe 4y agoI'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 4y agoIt 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.
- teeray 4y agoLate edit: s/broadband/bandwidth in the last sentence. That was a remnant from an unsubmitted edit, but I think my point got across.
- Overtonwindow 4y agoI 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%20for%20website%202020%208-9-21.pdf https://www.arrl.org/files/file/ODV/990%20TAX%20RETURN%20%20...
- wyldfire 4y agoI'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.
- nullc 4y agoThis 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.
- Overtonwindow 4y agoThat 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.
- hakfoo 4y agoI 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.
- 4y ago
- rektord 4y agoThe bill seems to be ill-defined. 2.8kHz at 3dB point? 6dB? What are the limits for -40dB? -60dB?
- teraflop 4y agoThe 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 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.
- teeray 4y agoMeasuring bandwidth at the 3db point is the standard measure. The other arbitrary points you mention are covered by existing regulations on spurious emissions.