Neither have I, nor have I seen reports of it. Looking just now at HF Underground, the 1PPS type signals haven't been reported since last December. In April there was a different "pips" signal reported with different timing.
Come now. Commercial activities aren't generally allowed in the ham bands, unless the regulations change. If I was setting up radio networks presumably costing millions, to be used for trading billions of dollars, I certainly wouldn't put the frequency in the ham bands to invite FCC action against my license and likely being subjected to deliberate malicious interference.
A few times I've thought I've heard a 1 tic go by but nothing that could be tuned to like the reports others and myself made.
The 1PPS sigs stopped in June of 2019. This came on the heels one of the hams investigating who lives in the Chicago area and drove right to an antenna site that was emitting 1PPS sigs. He subsequently documented it and went through channels. I won't out him without permission, but clips from an email he sent to me stamped 6/28/2019 7:57pm, "Riley had a meeting with the FCC on Friday morning (today) and tells me that the FCC told him it's an "experimental station gone awry" and that they're gonna contact the licensee.... as to who and what, I'll probably never know.... but I don't think you'll be hearing the pings anymore. If you do, please record it and let me know immediately." It took YEARS and a LOT of ham perseverence to acheive that!
I've said this before, and here is is again: One ADVANTAGE of having HAMS be part of this effort is that they want to keep it out of the ham bands. Directly or as intermod interference. Four years ago I was contacted about one such effort that wanted to USE the hams bands. That did not happen. Mere coincidence? Nah. OK? 73 Chip W1YW
At that time these 1PPS sigs were suppoedly NOT commercial, they were licensed (?) as Experimental (Part 5), and indeed it appears that some Part 5 licenses allow (temporary) intrusion into amateur allocations. But high QRO HF? Futher speculations run that the long running "experiments" to be valid could have included some nifty financial gains. Who / where is that oversight? Has the "experimental" phase, run out, now moving on to the next plan? Exploit dated fuzzy commercial radio service regs. Fingers-crossed no shared ham bands (like 40 meters) become adversely effected. Cheering that ethical hams involved like @W1YW will make and keep it so!
You just made my point. "FCC told him it's an "experimental station gone awry" and that they're gonna contact the licensee". Nobody is going to risk millions and billions on the full scale installation by being in the wrong part of the HF bands.
Not agreed. That logic assumes there is more risk and consequences in ignoring FCC regulations, which unfortunatly, as hams know all too well, is very limited today, especially for those with backing. The risk takers would be much more concerned with possible technical failure and performance, or maintaing a cover for data privacy.
"FCC told him it's an "experimental station gone awry" BS. But "hams" are tied to this "initiative." How could it have gone "awry" and wind up in the ham bands causing QRM. Their transmitters are frequency agile. They wanted to see how much they could get away with before they were noticed. "This is the age of Deception."
These aren't drunk idiots swearing, jamming and playing music. They are very serious business people with huge sums at risk. They don't need or want to invite trouble when there are plenty of other frequencies to use. And if for some unfathomable reason they really did need a frequency in the ham band, they would go through the process to get it assigned on their license. Dont' forget, it's not just between them and the FCC. They have competitors who would probably file with the SEC and in the courts against them if they were operating illegally with some advantage.
Yep. The investors are well aware that the ham bands are off limits. No one wants to get shut down based on some silly and unnecessary excursion into exclusive Part 97 allocations.
IMO, this actually makes the previous or could make a flawed potential future scenario more difficult to tolerate. I can look past, spin knobs, more easily around irrational demented operating, not official monkey-bidness. Especially as pointed out, with billion$ at risk, never underestimate what could be fathomable, IMO. In regard to the 1PPS saga, that's the point - why did some staffer at the FCC approve a Part 5 license application to run TENS OF KW of HF EIRP, possibly intrude into spectum allocated to the ARS, without ID being required; specifically asked to be excluded. Of course. But those competitors affected would first have to show evidence proving there was a violation. Per the OP, to the technically challenged, on the surface these newly proposed stations appear to be just innocent SWBC. Then check out post #12.
I found the choice of DRM to be...interesting. Comparable with nothing else, a specialized receiver is required. In looking for sales of these radios in the EU - the purported 'market' for this service, I could find no hard figures for market penetration. IOW - how big is this market in reality? The broadcast equipment can provide a signal that fits within the current ITU AM spectrum mask in 9 and 10 kHz channels, although it also has modes that can use " 18 or 20 kHz channels giving more capacity". I also find it interesting that a mega-HF station, near Chicago, seeks to broadcast 'religious and educational programming' with the digital content (I assume) providing the funding. Given the well documented state of HF 'religious programing' still in exorbitance, I have to wonder if this station will find any takers, unless the charges to carry the content are minuscule. If this station is - in reality - using the service a fig leaf for high speed trading, that will soon become apparent to the casual observer. What the FCC might do - or not, is the open question. Since I live in Ak, I really don't see that I have a dog in this fight. As far as possible interference, one need only look at the Chinese and their "Firedrake" jamming to wonder if this is even an issue.... Good luck to these guys, I can only hope they keep their skirts clean and out of our allotment.
Just approve and the build the thing. This is nothing new nor "illegal" . The people involved in going against this need to be educated.
I’m not naturally inclined to believe the world revolves around secret cabals and conspiracy theories, so your argument is unpersuasive to me. Most of the time a cigar is just a cigar (apologies to Freud).
