Ham Radio Mentioned Prominently In High-Frequency Trading Story

Hams, software defined radio and shortwave antennas in this story by Bloomberg News: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ff-19th-century-tool-in-search-of-market-edge

 

This story connects with the topic of this extensive thread in QRZ Ham Radio Discussions,

https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/time-signal-intruder.614510/

Signals that seem likely to be candidates for such experiments have been observed GLOBALLY within the amateur bands, 40, 20, 17 meters. They are short duration relatively narrow banded signals that sound like "time ticks" every 1 second, and hop around usually zero-beat on 5 khz dial spacing's as observed on USB mode with a 1 khz offset ie 14294, 304, 309, 319, 324, etc etc.

FCC Part 5 Experimental licenses have been granted to many for HF use potentially for this application. Most of those have frequency allocations that avoid Part 97 Amateur Radio allocations. Searchable on the FCC ELS web site - https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/GenericSearch.cfm

At least one of the possible candidates not mentioned in this news article, M-WAVE NETWORKS LLC, has been granted a FCC Part 5 Experimental license, call sign WJ2XGD, that INCLUDES the entire amateur 20 meter band with 4.7 kW ERP.

Unfortunately, the FCC Part 5 licenses granted so far WAIVE any station ID requirements. So determining the source of the Ham band intrusive signal(s) is difficult. Hopefully Hams in the Chicago area continue to monitor for these and if possible go mobile and RDF them for ID.

The Part 5 licenses also include the boilerplate in Special Conditions (2) Licensee should be aware that other stations may be licensed on these frequencies and if any interference occurs, the licensee of this authorization will be subject to immediate shut down."

Declaring these as QRM is of course a judgement call. But if these signals can be ID'ed, IMO perhaps the FCC and the experimenters should at least be notified of the potentially problematic situation of using the Ham bands.

73, John, WØPV

 

We already have that situation now with certain digital modes and no one is minding the store. It would be easy to hide in plain sight on the ham bands, the lack of enforcement and inability to decode transmissions by the average ham
make self policing impossible. The ARRL OO's can't even monitor some of the current modes and the users seem to think an id is optional.

 

Who will win the HFT DX battle?

WI2XNX, WJ2XGD or WH2XWU.

Which of the 3 is the one intruding?

I would think each would have it's own unique signal footprint.

 

It's an interesting new application for HF radio. I wish them success.

But I would prefer to observe the experiments OUTSIDE any Part 97 Amateur Radio segments!

Of the three call signs, only WJ2XGD, M-WAVE, has official FCC GRANTED permission to use a Ham Band, 14-14.99 Mhz.

The basic emissions designator 3K00D7D for WJ2XJD seems to make them a likely candidate for these observed "ticking" signals.

Link to an audio clip sample below, from the NA5B Web SDR in the Washington DC area,

https://instaud.io/2kl7

 

Where is the ARRL on this?

 

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

I've been thinking of the same exact thing! So far I'm just hearing crickets.

 

In Newington........

 

They posted a story on their web site News today,

http://www.arrl.org/news/experiment...ency-hf-to-shave-microseconds-off-trade-times

But it focuses only on the technology, not the potential effects on Hams.

They stated, "ARRL reached out to the point of contact listed on the WH2XVO application but has not heard back." However, that experimenters FCC license indicates frequencies that avoid amateur band allocations.

They should also be inquiring about the ID of the signals observed within Ham bands. Again, a likely candidate for that is M-WAVE, WJ2XJD (see previous post). Contact info for them is available too.

 

napping...in Newington is more like it.

 

The signal needs to be positively identified at this point. Hearing it on 18162 this morning here in NJ as well as in UK on a WEBSDR.

 

One of the HFT firms mentioned in the OP news link, Virtu Financial Inc, through SEC docs is linked to Services Development Company LLC. The latter hold FCC Part 5 Experimental license call sign WH2XVO and has two QTH's listed as being in Aurora IL (Kane county).

Unfortunately, in regards to these Experimental Program licenses, the FCC OET seems to have developed a "rubber-stamp" mentality toward waiving the usual requirements of 47 CFR 5.115 - Station identification, as seen at the end of the license grant docs, "Special Conditions: (4) The station identification requirements of Section 5.115 of the Commission's Rules are waived."

https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=210051&x=.

While the above licensee is not authorized to use Part 97 frequencies, other Experimental licensee's do have Ham band segments listed in their grant. Using the FCC ELS licenses search system MANY instances of the same Part 5 ID waiver can be seen.

However, without a workable Program ID process, compliance verification burden is totally put upon the outside observer. This makes it very difficult for other FCC licensed services to ID these signals if they should cause an interference threat.

This seems especially egregious considering these are not just QRP devices meant for personal use, they are full fledged QRO HF point-to-point DX super-stations intended eventually for commercial service!

The existing 7 CFR 5.115 regulation has a solution, see part (C) section 2.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/5.115

I hope the ARRL staff and applicable BoD committee's soon recognize the FCC OET administrative policy of blatantly waiving the Part 5 ID for such serious emitters isn't fair to other licensed services and should be halted and rescinded ASAP.

Its essentially sanctioning corporate clandestine radio operations, with the potential effects on public spectrum users ignored.

73, John, WØPV

 

So far everyone on the ham bands appear to be making room for the "time ticks". I have not heard any interfering transmissions. I'll bet you could make a QSO if transmitting right on top of their time tick transmissions. However, good hams abide by avoiding a frequency in use.

 

Depends on how "making a QSO" is defined.

Some of the reports of these signals have them at 20-30 db over S9. The AGC de-sensing or front end IMD blocking effects alone could render a weak signal un-copyable.

Contesters and FT8 users still probably not overly concerned, although throughput rates may suffer. But trying to hold a casual contact, round-table, or net could be rendered difficult to impossible. And how about QUALITY of QSO? Many Hams enjoy a quiet band to have a HiFi rag-chew. The effect of these ticks on a broader-banded DSB-AM with carrier is awful, worse then an electric fence.

It could be different too if the alleged experimenters, if that's what these signals are, stayed on predictable frequencies, but it seems part of their protocol to randomly "hop" around. And most of all, their licenses are restricted from causing QRM, other licensed services like Hams have no obligation to avoid their interference, which would not happen if they avoided amateur spectrum allocations.

Sure, a few "ticks" now and then could be ignoble over a short term experiment. But the quantity of difficult to ID digital signals heard on HF amateur bands is increasing while FCC Part 5 licenses are also increasing, with less restrictions, and can last for terms of years.