Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by W0PV, Jan 13, 2018 at 12:11 AM.
Well lets see what your League does with this. I'm sure it will not be much.
Is the ARRL changing it's position on "just spin the big knob"? That's the typical response you get from complaints about some practices, that even ARRL promotes,
that are a major source of interference on HF. Without adequate enforcement evenly across all spectrum it's silly to put the burden for interference mitigation on the receiver.
I understand what the TAC is looking at and since our service is unique in not being channelized, except for 60m, there may be an exemption for amateur spectrum......or not.
It's a free country, go ahead and start one. Post back and let us know how it goes.
I'll admit my punning was tongue-in-cheek (see the cute little emoticons?) and a slightly cheap shot.
But I didn't pick the word "protection"; now THAT is spreading FUD! IMO "Protection Game" is an inappropriate term; AS IF otherwise helpless hams need to feed funds only to the ARRL as "Guardians of the Galaxy" of ham radio, or else face the dire music.
No stirring of hate involved whatsoever; using that word is a vain attempt at gas-lighting all such comments. Discontent for sure, which is a healthy reaction by membership when the outcomes from past lobbying efforts have been so unsatisfactory, especially when that's combined with a substantial organizational political mess.
Agreed that the FCC proposal is the most important issue. However, if the ARRL immerses itself into it, for its members and/or all hams behalf, then they also assume responsibilities that come with accountability, and can expect rational feedback. I see no hysteria in any of the letters written by the major affiliated clubs regarding other League matters; I only suggest the same for this topic.
...and it is a popular technique thereof.
Chip, thanks for the insightful comments.
You're spot on that the ARRL staff should not try to go it alone in trying to "protect" our interests but should also elicit assistance from the amateur radio community (in all nations) who are professionally involved in technology developments that could impact future spectrum uses in these ways.
In regards to HF IMD from ISM devices, would these QRM waveforms be loosely analogous to the old OTHR Woodpecker? And the FCC proposal would to be to ignore the disastrous effects on some modes and simply suggest ham receivers, as done for the 'Pecker, have active filters, noise-blankers, specifically designed to mitigate them.
Although probably far more effective in SDR architectures, wouldn't this still create unacceptable distortion to "legacy" analog voice modes, ie, SSB, AM, and depending on the still arbitrary threshold levels, potentially even drop-outs to DV? Or far lowered bit-rates / SNR thresholds in digital data modes?
All of which would be a bitter pill to swallow for licensed hams, and seem to be contrary to many fundamental objectives of our service mission.
I am also troubled that this PN docket implies the FCC is seeking to get out of or vastly subcontract, AT RECEIVING USERS EXPENSE, the burdens of gathering evidence for enforcement in either an excessive noise floor or future waveform out-of-limits cases.
Especially onerous if foreign-made non-compliant devices are further allowed to flood into our marketplace.
73 de John WØPV
The FCC does nothing for Amateur Radio, I have not seen any enforcement done to people maliciously causing interference on HF bands, all of you have experienced such activity and even with complaints filed the FCC only responds by email saying it is being looked into, but nothing gets done. Lets face it commercial radio, television, cable, cell phone, and such own the FCC, not us. Our hobby is in a downward spiral and it started when code was dropped, wont be long they will drop the need of having to pass a Test for you to get a Tech License. They do not care about our opinion and ARRL has not got much power any longer.
Addressing the FCC proposal, in a nut shell were in the middle of a land grab , since the politicians do not make much money from us they are going in favor of the ones that will line there pockets.
Is "armature Radio" a reference to the Alexanderson alternator?
Right now most rigs use fairly simple DSP noise reduction algorithms, general pretty effective. However, the waveforms of much of this future IMD --will-- be fairly easy to pick out and thus remove with a fourier transform/matched filter in somewhat more sophisticated NR.
The woodpecker was highly periodic and that made it easy to remove with analog filtering. Not so with these freakin OFDM (or other) IMD products....
Basically, if next generation filtering is used, it SIMPLIFIES the ham's problem with interference, because anything that gets past the filtering is much too strong for the FCC to ignore, IMO. IOW it will be easier to make the case and push it through.
If China, for example, continues to send crap with interference, this will be an excuse to ban those imports in favor of clean(er) American products. The present administration is highly sympathetic with that, IMO.
Yep. Sleuthing RFI will be a new cottage industry--that hams can make a livelihood. Unless we keep playing publicity hero and giving it away...