Is Ham Radio Under Threat From Commercial Interests?

[@Hamradio54730]

Thanks Matt. I passed this on to those in the area, club officers, who may have not heard about this. Again, thanks for broadcasting the info. Gus, wd9gus.

[@K0LWC]

Glad to help, Gus!

[@arthurdent8091]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. This is just like losing 220mhz again. We need to STOP this thin edge of the wedge before we lose it all.

[@bradlong7941]

Why? You could listen to 220 mhz for weeks if not months and not hear anything other than white noise in my area of the country. Just about as bad for the classic 6 meters. Ain't enough local Ham nurds around anymore to fill up a school classroom in most Counties.

[@TubeRadiosRule]

@@bradlong7941 Just because it doesn't have much activity where you are doesn't mean it isn't used by other hams elsewhere. We can't as a community of hams take the attitude of "Well, I don't use it so why should I care?", or we'll lose it all eventually.

[@tracer0017]

I am sure this is where they ask for an inch but eventually will take a mile. This is just the start

[@ronm6359]

Absolutely correct

[@panchopistola8298]

Lol 😂 y’all asked for it by complying with the “ rules “ anyway .

[@Flagrazi]

I knew they were coming for us, it's the beginning of the end of HAM Radio as we know it.

[@justawfulgamer7738]

Just like our firearms.... Weird..

[@ronm6359]

@@justawfulgamer7738 not weird, that’s the plan

[@johnpeterson7264]

Sounds like we should be on the look out for $$$ flowing from this particular investment group to FCC regulators and their families. Money talks.

[@tomdonahoe3539]

Government *EMPLOYEES* can/will get into serious trouble if they accept money 💰 from special interest groups. On the other hand, members of Congress who sit on oversight committees for the FCC are *NOT* similarly constrained. These elected officials can accept *unlimited* campaign contributions & gifts 🎁 from these interest groups & their constituent corporations, Thanks to the Citizens United SCOTUS decision. The way it'll happen is, probably after a *significant* election, new people will be appointed to the FCC board drawn from the very companies who'd benefit most from any frequency reallocation. It'd begin with the FCC head, who'll be an attorney from one of the largest companies. This is analogous to what happened in 2017, when the lead attorney from Verizon (Ajit Pi) was appointed to head the FCC with the mission to end Net Neutrality - which was the 1st thing he did. It took years to undo that debacle. Bottom line - pay attention to who your elected representatives & senators get campaign money 💰 🤑 💸 from. That's who'll they'll be working for, not for you. Seen it happen over & over.

[@TubeRadiosRule]

So, why can't they operate on frequencies OUTSIDE the ones allocated for ham radio use? Seems like they are deliberately trying to edge out ham radio to limit the ways of people communicating with each other outside of their control...

[@BryanTorok]

There is a long history of Amateur radio being pushed to spectrum nobody wanted or that was deemed useless. In the early days of radio, we got pushed into what is now HF that was thought too high to be useful. That was until we proved it worked for trans-Atlantic communication. Then we got pushed above 50 MHz, then into VHF, then into UHF. When all of a sudden those frequencies were seen as useful for many things commercial, they tried to push out of there. Look how we lost half of the 220 band, now called the 222 band, because UPS wanted it. And the irony of after we got booted out or half the 220 band, UPS decided not to use it, but we didn't get it back. As everybody moved higher, HF was again deemed useless for commercial purposes and shortwave fell out of favor. Now someone has found a use for HF and wants it. Yes, we need to fight.

[@ronm6359]

Absolutely, when it gets taken away it’s never given back if the plans don’t work out.

[@keesvanoosbree5911]

You argument seems pointless. We did not get "pushed" into different spectrum space. In fact, we GAINED a TON! The 220 band is pretty much useless to amateur radio. There is only like 1 handheld that is designed to work in that spectrum. As I say, use it or lose it! We never used it, and we lost it! Not a surprise...

[@mike95826]

I like the line "our subject matter experts have determined". How do we know that their experiments have not caused interference, if there was no coordinated testing such as "it's on now", "it's off now". The users might have just thought that it was some local noise such as from electric vehicles or cable system leakage. I am sure if they got this licensed, that they would blame any interference on everyone else and particularly amateur radio. And what do the other countries in the rest of world think about this? I believe they haven't thought thru the thought about their being hackers and unfriendly countries that would find it a target.

[@K0LWC]

Experimental transmissions still have to use a callsign.

[@noithinknot4583]

​@@K0LWCWould that be the case with there "non verbal " communication, it seems like their treating this more like control signals that don't require call signs. Please understand if I'm ignorant of some facts that I'm still studying for the tech.

[@noithinknot4583]

By the way HF is exactly why I'm getting into ham.

[@nevertolatetoprepare2802]

As a retired I&C engineer, who until 30 yrs. ago maintained a First Class Radiotelephone license, and am now working on a Technician license (regs, bands, etc., haven't forgotten everything, yet), I would like to see a wide spectrum analysis from within a few kilometers when we outsiders know transmitting is in process. I also want to see spectrum data their 'experts' used for the analysis, eg. side band spread, harmonics measured at what distances, interferences within their own processes when transmitting on multiple frequencies, the locations of and times when the tests were performed (middle of nowhere and 0300?). I'm sure others can come up with more questions.

[@Songwriter376]

They need to shut down any and all forms of communication by the people for their agenda.

[@Flagrazi]

Thank you, that's exactly what it is. I'm pretty sure Klaus is involved. Ham Radio is free, there's no censorship for now, no control whatsoever. The time has come.

[@dand3975]

Ham radio is nothing more than C.B. Radio was 40 years ago. How big is my antenna? Is it a double bazooka with a rig blaster, I work somebody with my H.F. rig on six meters, I'm in my Ham shack., How many people did you work today? You best get that power Mike tuned up there? 73's to all.

[@ronm6359]

@@Flagrazi Klaus and the WEF no doubt are behind the scenes. They are evil bastards

[@dominodoggy1]

@@Flagrazi No censorship? We censor ourselves, daily. By the minute. I know I do. There's plenty of things I can't say on Ham radio. No encryption, either. No "coded messages" or anything that isn't plain and clear. Sounds like censorship.

[@thuff3207]

I agree and I know if commercial forces can make money on our spectrum they will.

[@jimaspinwall7814]

There is a LOT of non-amateur radio spectrum to be had. They are not after amateur radio allocations specifically.

[@Mike_M_KI4MRC]

You are correct about the precident this would set. As with many areas, this is what I would refer to as a “movement“. Movements do not stop, they keep moving. For example, and not necessarily a movement I disagree with, but it’s a great example of what happens over time. smoking was first moved to designated areas in restaurants. Then it was moved to only at the bar then it was moved to outside then it was moved to outside away from any door by X amount of feet. Then it was moved to you cannot smoke in public. Again, not a movement I disagree with, but a great example of what happens over a period of time with movements. this is why the NRA stand firm and does not bend when they see the beginning of a movement. The ARRL should do the same thing. Don’t give an inch because the movement will never stop.

[@robertfry3939]

This may not end amateur radio for now. But if it's like our rights to bear arms they will keep trying to whittle away at them. Then there's the problem of hi powered stations close to our bands.

[@ronm6359]

That’s the definition of progressive. Make slow progress, like slowly turning up the heat to boil a frog. Then by the time people realize what has happened its too late.

[@jamesseaman2950]

I don't believe this petition is any immediate threat to amateur radio, but the future could prove different. We've simply grown used to HF being largely abandoned by commercial interests over the past 50-years, but now even the military has rekindled interest in HF.

[@netnhamradio]

Exactly, interference (not noise) has gone down on HF outside the amateur bands at least, and as long as there's interest in HF and they don't interfere with us, I'm fine with it.

[@TheVideowise]

The Wall Street Journal had a good article about this over the weekend. I was amazed they even covered it. But this will really raise the knowledge base on this topic. I agree with your views, a long term threat.

[@68thBC]

Correct me if I am wrong but that is 80m thru 12m they want. Excuse me but FUCK NO.

[@fraudsarentfriends4717]

National parks are under threat by corporate interests too. Corporate interests are always out to take everything from the people and destroy those assets for profit.

[@norrinradd8952]

The petition isn't requesting use of amateur bands, so I'm not losing any sleep over spectrum I have no control over. But, you do make good points regarding this being the 'foot in the door'.

[@ActinOut]

Maybe I'm missing something here... but most HF bands run in this range (between 2 and 25Mhz). The only thing under this is 1.8 where we have last priority. 80, 40, 30, 20, 17, 15 and 12 all run between 2 and 24 and are all of the regular use HF bands. Sooo... I'm confused about it not affecting ham. Are you primarily on 2 and 70?

[@LouiseBrooksBob]

The wording was "exclusively for amateur radio use." Remember that amateur radio is not the primary user for the whole amateur radio spectrum.

[@norrinradd8952]

​ @LouiseBrooksBob You are correct, but I don't believe I made an argument to the contrary. I stand by my original comment. The petition isn't requesting use of amateur bands. Let's look at the entire phrasing: The SMC members do not seek to amend parts of the Commission’s Rules that pertain exclusively to - nor do they plan to utilize spectrum allocated exclusively for - amateur, maritime, or aeronautical services. Amendments to the Part 90 Rules proposed herein are focused on fixed rather than mobile communications where the Part 90 Rules make a distinction between the two. The entire first sentence can also be read as: The SMC members do not seek to amend parts of the Commission’s Rules that pertain exclusively to amateur, maritime, or aeronautical services, nor do they plan to utilize spectrum allocated exclusively for amateur, maritime, or aeronautical services. So the only band that could be affected by this petition is 60 meters. Again, potentially. I don't see any evidence of this being a greedy grab of this very specific 14kHz of spectrum and I'm not so sure the primary user of 60 meters are just going to hand the keys over. Nothing personal, I just don't see the relevance of your comment. Perhaps I'm overlooking something obvious. Maybe you can explain it to me.

[@norrinradd8952]

@@ActinOut They're not asking for exclusive use or ownership of ALL SPECTRUM between 2 and 25MHz. The petition defines 'frequencies above 2 MHz and below 25 MHz as the 2-25 MHz Band'. It's just being used as a placeholder for the portion of the spectrum that they wish to operate. There are numerous pages within the petition that describe how they go out of their way to avoid any interference. They have been operating these tests for some time. The specific frequencies are mentioned in the petition: _Specifically, we consider five frequencies within this range: 4.9, 10.2, 14.9, 19.9, and 24.8 MHz. We selected these frequencies based on even spacing across the 2-25 MHz Band in 5 MHz intervals. Because the exact frequencies 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 MHz are not available in the Part 90 Industrial/Business Pool, we selected comparable nearby frequencies that are in the Industrial/Business Pool and available for fixed service under Part 90 of the FCC’s rules._ I also shared this with Sarah within this thread, also from the petition: _The SMC members do not seek to amend parts of the Commission’s Rules that pertain exclusively to - nor do they plan to utilize spectrum allocated exclusively for - amateur, maritime, or aeronautical services._

[@hankhalbert6542]

Do not be silly, dumb. You know what is going on here.

[@david_W5QDF]

This will not totally end Amateur Radio just like all the attempts to get rid of guns in America has not worked.

[@denelson83]

Or all the attempts to get rid of _capitalism._

[@redman840]

No one has ever proposed “getting rid of our guns”… they’d like to keep weapons out of the hands of crazed lunatics,maybe even violent fanatics…those trying to overthrow our government.

[@ScottCasley]

As far as I know the 80m to 10m radio frequencies are WORLD WIDE frequencies. How does the USA FCC have any say over what happens here? Am I missing something?

[@K0LWC]

This is a rule change on the U.S. side at the moment -- but if more commercial interests come in I could see it going to the ITU some day.

[@garyhuber3462]

The real problem in my mind is the opportunity for interference from mixing of high powered signals falling into amateur and other bands. Unfortunately most of us wouldn't know if it was a A plus B minus C or a 2A minus C problem. I have seen this Elephant in major commercial markets while supporting commercial private two-way radio in the UHF and 800 MHz bands. If your radio has a mixer, how well will it handle a several 20 KW signals? AB9M

[@gahvno]

It might be fun to watch a war start at between the channel six C-beers running commercial power in their living room with these guys and see who wins ROFL My money is on Ruptured Duck running out of Alabama and Weedhopper running out of SoCal!

[@scotttodd3506]

Someone with your experience would be most valuable to our side with your comments to the FCC. Please consider filing them.

[@donz7992]

Nice video, Matt. I would really like to see objective data showing how much spurious emissions are generated and if it really will encroach on amateur bands. That said, phase II could very well be expansion INTO those bands if it is so lucrative. As they say, follow the money...

[@ronm6359]

W6LG says in his video that spurious is specified to be only 35 db down. I didn’t read the document yet, but I am sure he’s right. For a 20kw transmitter near the band edges, that is NOT near enough. We must get the ARRL to stop this!

[@k2icc]

Now we know where those strange noises are coming from. Great explanation. 73

[@frankW6NYX]

OH WELL, IF THEY TAKE IT .. THEY TAKE IT...LIFE GOES ON...TIME TO GET ANOTHER HOBBY !

[@TooEssgee]

If licenced amateur radio operators continue to congregate on a couple of spot frequencies on each of our HF bands, then who can blame those seeking spectrum for commercial purposes for thinking that we amateurs no longer have a need for our numerous bands. If you devote a substantial part of your HF operating time to digital modes such as FT8, then you are exacerbating this illusion. Seriously, kick FT8 into touch and get back on CW and SSB. Only greater band occupancy will demonstrate that we still want and need our bands.

[@texasyojimbo]

HF is going to be limited to low-latency, low-bandwidth applications (even if commercial interests used 100 percent of HF, it would be about the same bandwidth as one wifi channel, shared by everyone on the planet, with tremendous amounts of fading and multipath interference). Any sufficiently-long message will take longer to send over HF than it would over the Internet because of bandwidth limitations. And the infrastructure required -- rather large antennas for starters -- certainly seems like a non-starter for many businesses. It seems like kind of a niche opportunity. There will definitely be some profitable uses but I suspect the damage will be somewhat self-limiting.

[@kingearwig]

So the use case for trading I think would look like this. Use an existing channel to set up a trade then use an HF trigger to initiate it with very accurate timing. This would take advantage of the low latency while not requiring much bandwidth. I could see this allowing many companies to use very small portions of the band each to accomplish their goals.

[@Blake-jl8lh]

What's funny is if they could use that much power at much higher frequencies they would have much better performance.

[@henrikhansen4392]

But, what if there are not internet? What if the internet, some time in the near future was taken down, could this be used to still carry out financial transactions between banks? Or would the speed be to slow?

[@garydonamon749]

Many thanks. Great summary. Greetings from Ireland

[@WorldMoneyWins]

I never even heard of this! Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention!

[@radscot]

I never liked 'high frequency traders' and less so after hearing of this latest scheme. The trouble is that once one collective are seen to be gaining an advantage, no matter how slight, the rest will all rush to do the same, so if this is permitted it won't be a slow increase; it will explode. Of course, as we all know, propagation varies between bands, so I'd wager they'll want to take a 'belt and braces' approach and transmit on many bands simultaneously, just to get the best reliability that they can achieve, so that means all the others - when they rush to join the party - will also wish to use multiple bands for best reliability and redundancy. The first camel will poke its nose under the tent, then almost immediately after doing so, an entire heard of camels will rush to stampede the tent into a [noisy] pulp. IMHO this needs to be fought; fought hard!

[@K0LWC]

I agree. If this proves successful others will follow to help eliminate the edge.

[@edwardmanfredi121]

Good synopsis and perspective on this proposal. This is the same as they're doing to the 2nd Amendment; a little infringement at a time......deadly !

[@backcountryamateurradio]

Thank you for putting this out there. I am concerned that this could set a precedence, as you say.

[@charleswoods2996]

Here, I took my comment post from W6LGs channel... After reading up through page 47 of the petition provided by your link, we Amateur Radio operators have nothing to worry about as these proposed agencies are only going to be using five (5) frequencies of the 2 through 25 MHz Amateur Radio spectrum and will have many preventive measures in place to combat interference to other users, such as us, "Amateur Radio" operators, as was mentioned several times throughout the dialogue. I'm a disabled person that's nuts enough to take the time which I have much 🤣🤣🤣 to read thoroughly! Although, I'm sure any reasonably decent Amateur Radio operator would incorporate etiquette so as not to interfere with those "non-voice DATA" signals that they will be used if all of this goes through. Five (5) little frequencies where "DATA" is going to be transmitted for business purposes because the microwave bands are too expensive. Otherwise, we have nothing to fear. But your corporations and government ARE IN FACT in bed together and are pretty much one and the same. KD8EFQ/73 Just some crippled and half-crazy grunt in the Rubber City, Buckeyes State🤣🤣🤣

[@ronm6359]

“Only 5 frequencies now” once the camel gets its nose under the tent, it’s over. And I use the animal camel deliberately. I’ve heard Saudi money is behind this (perhaps others too)

[@charleswoods2996]

@@ronm6359 I think that's a very insinuatory claim, thus I disagree. The argument can't be proven, there's no evidence to support it! Also, you're casting an aspersion, another faulty argumentative strategy. 5 frequencies, "non-voice", I'm guessing "data" that would use a more narrow bandwidth than voice. And where did you hear that Saudi money was behind it?

[@ronm6359]

@@charleswoods2996 “the argument can’t be proven. There’s no evidence to support it”. Just read some history man… it always happens. The government promised social security numbers would NEVER be used for any identification purposes. The history of fiat currency is this: the value goes to zero… I could go on and on…. ‘Nuff said, I proved my point. As far as Saudi money, you do your own home work. I’m not going to do it for you. As far as your comment on bandwidths, you don’t have a fundamental understanding of communication theory and modern trends. Get real, we hams are in danger of loosing more spectrum. Proposed rule making documents may often sound innocent, but carefully crafted documents by DC law firms can hide lots of little details that often have huge consequences. The strategies always used by lobbyists and other groups seeking government assistance is always start small and build up to what you really want.

[@ronkali5365]

@@charleswoods2996 Once Hams give up an freq, that's it.they will take over the entire band

[@fntsmk]

Great presentation. Thanks much. Shared on my social media.

[@K0LWC]

Thank you, and thank you!

[@matthewshank73]

I expected ARRL would advise our community when, where, who & what is experimenting on our frequencies. What does it look & sound like. Where is the transparency?

[@SHTFchef]

Compliance with the bandplan is essentially the honor system. If it becomes unreasonable, people will transmit wherever they please.

[@larryfields2652]

years ago they use to say Use it or Lose it, the more we use our bands in all modes the more they will go away or fight them off the bands, I can see the Jammers coming out to play

[@kc0itf]

How is any of this commercial lusting of our spectrum new? Quite frankly, it comes down to choosing your battles... everytime you use your smartphone you give those commercial interests more power. When they start demanding our radios share their pronouns or Dylan Mulvaney gets HIS ham license... THEN I'll be worried!

[@MishaDaBear]

So no other users of 2-25 MHZ have reported any interference! HUH, HTF were we able to identify interference when there was no label and we were not told of the experimental project that started in 2016!

[@jeffdo9195]

Guess they are not worried about propagation

[@REKlaus]

I was prepared for another Chicken Little "The Sky is Falling" video but was happy to see a common sense approach here. What it possibly boils down to is the old Us It Or Loose It some time in the future. There are Large chunks of the "Shortwave broadcast" bands that are largely unused. These companies will also have to be careful to not interfere with shortwave broadcast stations world wide, not just services in the U.S. as we all know that HF gives world wide propagation on fairly low power levels.Yes this does need to be watched but lets not put the cart before the horse.

[@K0LWC]

Exactly.

[@nevertolatetoprepare2802]

To reduce the potential for interference, the ARRL should initiate a movement to restrict and then reduce the power at which these companies may broadcast.

[@jimaspinwall7814]

Exactly where and how does this specifically mention or threaten Part 97 allocations? No where. No known complaints from Part 97 users. "But.... Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt" Just what the FCC 'needs' - more 'noise' from hams.

[@CanadianTreasureHunter]

If we loose more bands, World wide Jammers will unite

[@terrymoorecnc2500]

UPS/220Mhz all over again. UPS had to have that spectrum, they couldn't survive without it. Never used it and we got stiffed. FCC sold it off. Boneheaded rule making and other emerging tech helped to eliminate the need.

[@K0LWC]

That whole UPS debacle was a terrible deal for amateurs. It's a coveted band -- and telecoms would love to have the rest of it for 5G.

[@dennismcglinsey1939]

Please fight this with all u have! As long as we have radio waves will have a voice.

[@blurfs3763]

Just because no one has complained does not mean that there is an absence of interference.

[@CapnJackFltSimChannel]

Matt I am in total agreement here with you on the issue. EVERYTHING you stated is valid and right on. I don't really think that the issue at hand is going to affect amateur radio, BUT the long term implications are definitely an issue. NOW, that being said, the HF bands are HIGHLY unutilized and really do need to be open for other services, BUT, THEY should be held accountable to standards for non interference to other users. It would be unrealistic and unreasonable to expect no other users to utilize frequencies not being used. HOWEVER, the FCC should make all use of the bands be held to standards to protect other users, including the long use of Amateur radio. We used to have to share some frequencies with shortwave broadcasters in the past, and it all worked well. Band plans and technical standards should be what the FCC mandates for the other users LONG TERM. We will be discussing this on the SkyHubLink Monday NIGHT System NET 7/17 and other evenings. We invite check in's and participation by all amateurs. See the NETS page at www.skyhublink.com for more information and you will have a chance to have your voice and opinions heard.

[@tmiller9099]

The FCC has assigned it RM-11953. Comments are due by July 31, 2023, and reply comments by August 15. While the petitioners exclude the amateur bands, high power operations on immediately adjacent bands are proposed.

[@hikingmando]

Thanks for breaking this down in a reasonable fashion

[@K0LWC]

My pleasure!

[@bobblacka918]

The thing that really scares me is if some investment company buys the HF amateur radio bands and then charges hams a monthly fee to use them, kind of like how the internet operates. There is a push in the USA to privatize everything, including roads so this is not entirely out of the question. Investors have already bought up most of the new houses so this would become just one more thing for them to invest in.

[@gdubl11]

“When investment groups have to hide behind the vehicular name “Shortwave Modernization Coalition” You know they aren’t being transparent in their motives…”

[@jimaspinwall7814]

There is a LOT of non-amateur radio spectrum to be had. This is specific to Part 90 spectrum, NOT 97.

[@amancalledkev]

Does no-one think that this smacks of something more sinister? The removal of things from public hands that could prove to be a hindrance or ‘danger’ to governments as society continues to fall apart and the public is put under tighter and more controlling laws that prevent freedoms…?

[@crosslink1493]

I just stumbled across this by accident. I'm not an amateur radio aficiado but more of a television broadcast nerd (up in the VHF & UHF spectrum). This parallels the current changeover of digital TV broadcasting from ATSC 1 to ATSC 3 software where the broadcasters are encrypting their basic station signals to essentially put them behind paywalls and subscriptions (which violates FCC licensing standards). Geez it sure is an interesting and volatile time in the world of RF transmission, isn't it?

[@ChipEckardt]

Great topic. It concerns me as well because, as you said; “ The camel’s nose under the tent.”

[@K0LWC]

Exactly!

[@chadpm11]

Some of the same spectrum i use on some of my rc aircraft systems that are encoded and all built by me keeps the jammers ppl are getting now for gps and allowed radio controlled frequencies.

[@DMW5533]

Being A Canadian Ham I am not sure how this works of the commercial entities start taking up some HF spectrum. Which is generally excepted as Ham Frequencies around the world how can one country and I mean any country not just the U.S. reallocate frequencies for commercial use when other countries are still designating it for Ham use. Doesn’t the literally whole world have to agree to reallocate these frequencies? If not my station that is in Canada but is very close to the U.S. border interfere with the commercial interests of the U.S. commercial use? I think this needs to be a world wide question for all that are ham radio operators

[@DirtyPlumbus]

This is exactly why I didn't get a license. This is complete BS. The amateur bands are for citizens communication, first amendment protected, communication. *NOT FOR BUSINESS*

[@K0LWC]

Do you just operate on 11 meters?

[@lupuszzz]

As a non-US citizen, I cannot vote against this petition because it only applies to residents of the US. Do you have any idea how I can support the upcoming worldwide issue? I think it is ridiculous to petition the FCC for an ITU issue. Practically, the FCC can't approve this issue without international agreement, because especially RF radio waves don't stop at borders.

[@K0LWC]

This hasn't risen to that level yet. But in the future it could become a worldwide issue involving the ITU, imo.

[@nemesisfpv440]

The people lobbying for this are the same people that want to control the air space below 400ft. Don't be surprised when they start making rules that are not fair to the people that enjoy this hobby. But please remember that you are not alone

[@fransahm1956]

So the answer is NO? When a headline staarts with a question.....you always know the answer.

[@K0LWC]

No...ish.

[@kentemple6498]

It’s a money game. Who’s gonna offer more money to who? Can the amateur radio lobbyists (ARRL?) offer more money than private industry, or military? I know nothing of the lady in charge of the FCC, but they’re all crooked and can be bought. I’m new to amateur radio so I don’t have a full understanding of this particular problem or the history of similar threats in the past, but I know how politics work, and under this administration, I don’t trust any of them. It’s all about money, power and control.

[@hagiasmos314]

Well analyzed, sir!

[@K0LWC]

Thank you!

[@dennistate5953]

A good reason to rejoin ARRL❤

[@K0LWC]

I haven't seen anything that shows me the ARRL is in any way prepared for whatever fight may exist on the horizon.

[@dennistate5953]

@@K0LWC agreed. Who ya got better?

[@wjjohns04able]

Let’s hope not. I just passed my tech license yesterday and I’m waiting on my call sign. 🤣🤣🤣

[@K0LWC]

Congratulations on getting licensed!

[@wjjohns04able]

@@K0LWC Thanks, I’m pretty stoked!!

[@jkgallag]

Conspiracy Theories. Looking at the brief, it doesn't even hint at taking any part of our slim slice of the spectrum. Unlike when UPS stole half the 220mhz band from us (and subsequently abandoned their SSB project), this plan specifically exempts current users of the spectrum in question.

[@K0LWC]

220 is so underutilized yet such a cool band.

[@jkgallag]

@@K0LWC it was much cooler when the entire band was opened to Novices as their first vhf band. There were a lot of 220 repeaters in the area that had to be re-crystalled when the FCC caved to the UPS folly. I wrote a 9 page opposition comment to the proposal that was referenced in the final decision. A sad day for Hams.

[@d3w4yn3]

Humans are impervious to the corruption of money... or maybe not. They didn't provide their data, and it wasn't validated by an independent (not on their payroll) third party. I wouldn't assume that they aren't making false claims already... this is how the sub was lost, they had good reports in their marketing campaign as well.

[@Paul_VK3HN]

Nothing to worry about. They are not proposing broadbanded 100kW Woodpeckers. And it will be point to point, so directional antennas. There's miles and miles of underutilized HF now that SW BC has died, why would they bother to come near the ham bands? If they ever did come within the tuning range of an IcomYaeKenCraft rice box , they'd be jammed mercilessly, and they know it.

[@kb5miqbigboy]

Great video Matt! 73!

[@K0LWC]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@Thomas-ZET]

Interesting, with current world affairs and the threat of satellites being targeted buy other countries this is an option, the arrl should petition the fcc for a 2 class system basic and full to get more amateurs on HF, yes many older hams will say no and are still pissed at the last change

[@BryanTorok]

I wonder, how many Amateurs and other users of the HF spectrum HAVE experienced harmful interference from their experiments but didn't know the source and thus couldn't complain about it? Due to the nature of HF, a source of interference can be hundreds of mile away. And, if the interference is digital noise, how would the typical amateur determine the source? If the experience interference from the amateur community, we would easy to identify because we are required to transmit our identity every 10 minutes in plain language. My guess is that they aren't. We need to find out what frequencies they have been using experimentally.

[@GregEmbury]

It's no secret the FCC considers amateur radio an inconvenient nuisance. The FCC would love to sell off the amateur radio bands to commercial business. Ham radio operators need to join the ARRL. While not perfect, the ARRL is the only organization large enough to represent amateur radio and go up against the FCC.

[@K0LWC]

Sadly, I don’t think they’re up to the fight should it ever arise.

[@GregEmbury]

@@K0LWC Maybe not, but without them, there’s no chance

[@hankhalbert6542]

Like LAND DEVELOPMENT, they are clearly just trying to a foot in. And FOREIGN Investors?

[@Blake-jl8lh]

"this will be better and faster" yeah wait until you piss off a ham

[@hankhalbert6542]

We have heard of Ukrainian and Saudi BACKED business interests so far. Due Diligence needed ASAP to see who these petioners really are!

[@timbacchus]

It will get rid of Mars frequencies. Will the army airforce and navy help us keep these edge frequencies?

[@mikeduffy9409]

The FCC has been selling out our bands for years look at 1.25 meters and so on money talks

[@jaiminsachania3385]

This should not be allowed…all hams should come together and oppose this from happening…

[@K0LWC]

I encourage you to submit a comment if you feel strongly about this petition.

[@elliothuh669]

I've heard it could go as high as 200,000watts

[@K0LWC]

With ERP when you factor in antenna gain it’s possible.

[@ExpatSpot]

This is a GREAT share! Thank you @KOLWC! Keep up the great work! ( KE4LTW ) 73!

[@patrickslevin6424]

Start with repeaters and turn them into garage door openers!!

[@DustyTrailCFDA]

So they experimented with10Kw and now want 20Kw. How can they say twice the wattage will not cause problems?

[@K0LWC]

10,000 vs. 20,000 isn't really that big of a jump in the strength of signal.

[@DustyTrailCFDA]

@@K0LWC 500 to 1000 isn't either but it CAN use more bandwidth. obviously in a smaller scale

[@GaryLevin]

The. amateur radio bands are reserved for HAMS except for a few bands . Let them find other unused spectrum. There is a lot of empty space on SW bands

[@johnmoyer2849]

Remember when cellphone took over upper uhf tv channels? Now all tv analog frequencies are gone.Ham is next.

[@debraandrino3213]

The reallocation of 800mhz (US TV channels 70-83) took place in the early 1980s. After the switch from analog to digital TV in 2009 channels 52-69 (700mhz) were reallocated as well. Channel 2-6, 7-13, 14-51 are still are being used for TV, operating on the same frequencies they have been since about 1950. The fact that one TV channel can now carry several program streams means fewer are needed anyway. Even before the DTV transition there weren't that many TV channels in use in any given area, and since TV signals are relatively short-range, the same channels could be re-used in a different region sufficiently far away. Ham radio is still safe for the foreseeable future. This entire proposal confuses me. I don't know why any business wants these crappy frequencies (which is why the ham radio community has them), but the proposal clearly was drafted by bean-counters and day-traders, not engineers. Either that or it fell through a time warp from the 1950s. As others have pointed out, the information-carrying capacity of a channel increases with frequency. HF frequencies simply can't carry nearly as much information as microwave or satellite links, which operate at much higher EHF or SHF frequencies. Yes the first few bytes will reach their destination a few milliseconds sooner because it is not going up to a satellite and back down again, but if the data rate is a hundred times slower, of what use is that? The entire HF spectrum doesn't even have the bandwidth of a single WiFi channel. I wouldn't worry much about losing the HF spectrum, because the whole thing seems like nonsense to me.

[@fabriziofaleni2875]

There's an United Nations agency dealing with this stuff: ITU. I wonder if they're aware of this petition

[@radiotec76]

Sounds like Wall Street’s version of the Russian Woodpecker.

[@mikegianfrancesco9431]

If this happens the fcc will make other freq for us

[@edwardlittle9362]

I have two thoughts. (1) Latency and throughput aren’t the same thing. The reason HF is underutilized is that its throughput is awful-that’s just physics. (2) Tents sold in North America have sealed floors, so the camel can’t really get its nose in there.

[@timothystockman7533]

Powerline ethernet has the potential of destroying HF from about 5 - 28 MHz. The designers were somewhat crafty, they notched our the ham bands (including WARC) to reduce complaints from hams, but as soon as one gets 150 kHz our so away from a ham band, blammo. Shortwave broadcast is wiped out. CB is wiped out. 15 MHz WWV wiped out.

[@McCuneWindandSolar]

Well Ham Radio Operators need to ban and tell them to take a hike. and say screw wall street.

[@James_Bowie]

Good work! Takeover by slow creep!

[@jeff420sparky8]

boy did i have fun at honda indy 2023 toronto talking to the drivers on uv5r😁i wasnt at the race either😁 boy i ♥️♥️♥️♥️canadian customs and radio laws😁😁😁so relaxed unlike usa where you need a license even for gmrs frs. boy talk about no freedom of the airwaves there😁😁

[@LouiseBrooksBob]

This is about competition for the lowest latencies in high frequency trading where the winner takes all. So if one investment operation starts doing it, all the rest will.

[@K0LWC]

I agree. If this is successful many in the fin space will likely want to invest in this technology.

[@royceweslowski3730]

So why can’t the use satellites?

[@K0LWC]

They can, but latency is subpar with sats.

[@debraandrino3213]

@@K0LWC That's what I can't quite understand. Of what value is low-latency if the bandwidth of the channel is about 2-3 orders of magnitude less than that of the frequencies used by satellite? Sure, the first few bytes get there faster, but the entire HF band doesn't even have the bandwidth of a WiFi channel. Is not low bandwidth also a form of latency? The entire proposal is ridiculous, given the sheer volume of data routinely transmitted over satellite, fiber-optic, and other high-speed links. Unless maybe the most high-value CRITICAL data that needs to be transmitted is only a few kilobytes and the rest goes via one of the other methods.

[@redman840]

Scroll to 1:53… there’s your answer to the question.

[@FjHenderson]

Are you or anyone positive that they haven't been using our HF bands? What's all these strange emissions that have been on the bands that no one knows about? I say no

[@VlajCo-di8lc]

In best case they will gain up to 100ms of a jump start. I don't see a whole bunch of companies rushing to this expensive sport beside standard means of super fast and responsive communications.

[@K0LWC]

I would think setting up this technology would be much less costly in the long haul compared to what they pay for other services.

[@mintonmiller]

The part that makes no sense to me is that they are saying that HF is as efficient or more efficient at passing data than satalite, or microwave. That is total nonsense. The higher the frequency, the greater the baud rate. Can you imagine your PC running at a 2MHz clock speed? Add to that the fact that short wave is notoriously unreliable. Anyone tried working regular skeds the past 10 years? Is propagation on your skeds always the same? I could understand if they wanted more of the spectrum in VHF, UHF, and microwave, but again, HF makes no sense, Commercial enterprises abandoned HF a long time ago and the did so for a reason. Now they want to go backwards to antiquated technology and somehow think it will work better. What do they know about HF propagation that we all have missed in the last 100 years? I am not worried tor 3 reasons. 1. It is already happening and no one knew it. However I do wonder what it will be like if a lot of commercial entities get on board. 2. I am just a hobbyist. I really took it to heart What was written in the ARRL manual and study guides that amateur radio is an avocation. Family, church, work, and so on come first. So for me, if parts of Hf become unusable do to commercial uses like 40 meters was for most of my ham life, I will just spin the dial, employ filters and get along. I work mostly CW and am sure I will find some place to nest, and if I can not, I have so many hobbies to fill my time that I think I will survive. 3. Lastly and most importantly, what they are attempting is like taking 10 steps backwards and soon will be forsaken by all commercial enterprises. I have been a ham for over 30 years. I primarily work CW and a little SSB. Every 3 or 4 years someone sounds the alarm that this latest proposal will be the end of amateur radio. Yet here we are. Minton-- n0nwo

[@K0LWC]

They did acknowledge the solar cycle as a threat and issue to address. However, we’re talking about 20,000 watts. with a vastly higher ERP, pointed to another high quality station overseas. Not exactly your typical amateur setup. And it’s not that it’s more efficient as it quicker. Latency on satellite is a struggle, as is with fiber across the world. They’re saying latency with the data is better on HF than those other methods across the world - not to mention it’s a reliable backup should terrestrial networks go awry.

[@mintonmiller]

@@K0LWC I guess I am just mot smart enough to comprehend this. What I know from experience is HF is not reliable. Anyone like me that has been listening to shortwave the last 50 or 60 years knows this. I could be wrong about this and I guess I should have looked it up before replying, but don't most shortwave stations past and present including WWV already transmit with more power than what is suggested here? Latency is just a slight lag time from what you do and when it is heard. I am an amateur musician as well as an amateur radio op and have done some digital recording to PCs. The answer to latency in recordings is faster pc clock speeds and faster sound cards, not slower. So no mater how you slice it, transmitting data at a slower baud rate in the best of conditions is still not going to be faster than the higher rates of fiberoptics in the worst conditions. I also once had dial up internet. It took me over 3 hours to download some information from the FCC website on yet another proposal that would end ham radio. One week later I had cable and downloaded the same information in less than 3 minutes on the same pc. If it takes longer to transfer data because you have a lower baud rated on HF, doesn't that make a latency problem worse? I do not know what the real end game is, but there is no way it has anything to do with latency. That story just does not compute in my simple mind. over 30 years of experience says to me this has to be a smokescreen for something else. (note to reader) I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories and I seldom wear a tinfoil hat. odds are I just am not smart enough to understand and am drawing on the wrong life's experiences, but there it is. Minton -- n0nwo

[@joewiehr1931]

When you factor in the DB gain of their antennas. that 20 thousands watts becomes 200 thousand watts radiating from their antennas.

[@K0LWC]

A boy can dream, can't he? Let me hook up to those antennas and amps with my Icom. :)

[@joewiehr1931]

@@K0LWC On 11 meter LOL LOL Gives a whole new meaning to calling CQ CQ CQ DX

[@russellhltn1396]

About "exclusively" - remind me again about what bands we share? We could lose those.

[@K0LWC]

60M could be at risk. We've already seen recent changes there as it is. It's not heavily used, but I think it's a fun band.

[@majorkonfuzion1007]

remember Like a good ham, you have to obey the rules.

[@tech29X]

Camel's nose under the tent. What do you have against camels? ;-) Are you sure it's not Smokey the Bear's nose under the tent?

[@ruggugglan]

In europe on 27,235 mhz their is a signal from something like this disturbing

[@Cruzinnv]

Global emergencies, and US communications is also an important usage to the amateur radio community usage as well to the civil sector.

[@Johnyrocket70]

Fiber optic lines and satellites are far more dependable than hf. Hf propagation changes day by day. This must be for a backup system. You can't stop business transfers waiting for good Hf conditions. Give them the 70 meters and 40 metres.

[@K0LWC]

It sounds like the technology they've developed hops from band-to-band. While still impacted by solar conditions it should keep that open a vast majority of the time.