20kW with a 10dB antenna is a BEAST ... effectively 200,000 watts. To me, that is the issue. They aren't using anywhere near 20kW in their experimental tests, so who knows when they fire up full power. To me, that is the issue. Also, in my professional capacity, I've seen people like AT&T utterly screw over the 2 GHz Band because of a lack of an effective "guard channel". As a result of only having a very narrow difference is that the top and bottom channels of the 2 GHz band are practically unusable. The FCC has said that AT&T have to pay for filters, but in practice, these filters do next to nothing since a filter has "roll off" and doesn't have a vertical cliff in filtering. These people have other methods to get their data out, they are just trying to save a couple milliseconds to make money.
And…when one of the petitioners was fined $67,000,000 in 2019 over an admission f stock trade fraud perpetuated on consumers, would you trust them to play by the weak rules proposed here?
Dave, many decades ago, I was involved in engineering some of the first digital microwave systems in this country, and will take you at your word that you can pontificate for hours on the eb/no advantages of this modulation scheme, or that convolutional coding scheme, but damn it Dave, the question here isn't just TECHNICAL -- sure, it CAN be done... but SHOULD it be done? My considered opinion, based on 40 years experience, is HELL NO, because inevitably there WILL be at least SOME cross-band interference, and even if it's kept to only moderately destructive levels, this is a STUPID, TOTALLY UNNECESSARY, WASTEFUL, UNETHICAL, AND MOST LIKELY, ILLEGAL USE OF SPECTRUM -- given that it seems to have the single and sole purpose of helping one group of those wonderful "Rich men North of Richmond" the song talks about, to gain an unfair advantage over their fellow sleazy a-holes, by shaving a few milliseconds off data transport propagation delay times so they can better "game the system". First time I ran into this kind of silly stupidity, was several years back when I got involved in the engineering support for a similar venture involving a digital microwave link moving financial trade information. I couldn't see how the economics could work, since, bit for bit, mile for mile, fiber communications has become thousands of times more economical, but I wasn't considering just how far those scheming, scamming "Rich Men North of Richmond" types are willing to go to gain a crooked advantage. You see, It's all about the difference between the speed of light in optical fiber cable (about 2/3 C), vs the speed of light in air (about 99.99 percent of C) which lets them shave a few milliseconds off the data propagation delay so their sleazy computer trading algorithms can screw over other traders a little more effectively. We didn't get the contract, which was fine with me, as I considered the whole thing a scam. You would think that with the "Crypto King" now possibly facing more than a century in prison, that enthusiasm for these kinds of scams would have faded -- but apparently not.
Dave, with all due respect, the situation is more serious and is deserving more attention than you convey. This is not "something they have been doing all along, and no one has noticed" . This is 20 KW at a much wider bandwidth than before. This is with more serious EIRP, effectively. Did you read the "PETITION FOR RULEMAKING OF THE SHORTWAVE MODERNIZATION COALITION" end to end? I did, multiple times. Many generalizations and examples of "hand-waving". Did you read the ARRL response ?? I did as well, multiple times. And after checking their simulations- all of which I am familiar with, having worked in the EMI field- have determined that the Mr Hare's analysis is correct. He was completely correct about BPL, remember that? Did you do a detailed propagation analysis?? I do not see that. What I did hear was a purely verbal explanation, mostly about the application itself, without mathematical backup about the RFI aspects that should concern us. I think we should expect more than that before making up our minds. In conclusion, if they do get permission granted, it means there will be wholesale interference on our band edges, extending well into the bands themselves.
Dave, thanks for the calm analysis on this issue. I agree that greed is the root but I also believe the "potential" for interference is there and shouldn't be ignored. There is also the "possibility" of more requests like this in the future that might even take away portions of the amateur bands for commercial purposes. I am NOT saying this will happen or that I even believe it will, just that the possibility exists. Greed has a way of making it's own rules. Thanks for another great video. Jack K5FIT
I don't like HST. Here's why. Stocks function to allow companies to raise funds by selling themselves. Stocks also allow owners to participate in the governance of companies they own. Both parties stand to make financial gains from the deal. This breaks down when companies take actions to prevent owners from participating and when owners don't participate. HST prevents both benefits and amplifies greed and corruption. I am personally for a requirement that stock purchasers own stock for a minimum time and that a random time delay be added to every trade execution. I know this won't happen since there's so much money at stake. I'm against the enactment of something like RM-11953 because it benefits the people who least need it.
Thanks Dave! It seems then the real negative with the proposal is not so much RF related as much as it is not in the publics interest. It serves only a few, and not necessarily US based benefactors.
You can't see the inch turning into the mile here? Just look what has happened to the rest of the spectrum, it's being sold for tens of millions. You don't think someone at the FCC is getting their back rubbed?
I submitted my comments on this and one of my concerns basically is that their signal is now in an 'open' environment, thus subject to possible nefarious agents with aims to jam signals with 'dirty' transmitters which might set hams up for another Russian Woodpecker from spurious signals. Thanks for your research.
Thanks for a calm, well-reasoned explanation. I still have some concern, though, that this has the potential of being the camel's nose under the tent. The 1% behind this is not well-known for high standards of conduct, much less civic-mindedness, in my not so humble opinion. Let us hope that the RM is subjected to rigorous evaluation, not just a rubber stamp due to the money involved.
@@patrickwagner9729 And that rubber stamp is exactly the problem. I make it a point of practice never to join public hysterias -- they almost always lead to personal embarrassment -- but I share your concerns about the relatively honesty of the players in question.
Still say no: it's a slippery slope. If this is granted, what other greedy businesses will take advantage of this lower latency until all of HF is taken over? To me it has nothing to do with ham radio but about corporate greed.
Dave Thanks for the video. For all the information you included, you did miss two details. First, the 20KW is in RMS, not peak envelope power. So the power output is even more substantial compared to a hams signal. Second, they mention that "This could lead to wider adoption of 2-25 MHz Band transmission systems in industries such as manufacturing, petroleum, or mining, or by other firms that do business in global trouble spots and need or desire to avoid reliance upon vulnerable alternative facilities (e.g., satellite, terrestrial/subsea fiber)." This would be an attempt to show its use for the greater good. I don't know if it's enough but there is more than you mentioned. My last comment is we need to consider how this could be used in the future. The consortium could turn out to be respectful in their use of the spectrum and not be a problem but this doesn't mean future groups will be. Especially if it's mining or manufacturing groups that don't have an unlimited budget. Then corners will be cut and issues could arise. With the loose limits they are asking for hams wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I'm not completely against the change I just think it needs to be reeled in a bit.
Well , just sitting by calmly and trusting the government appointed officials will not work . Hams are not pouring $$$ into the FCC so . . . BUT , we are the ones that have effectively run "tests" on these bands for decades and made it such tempting Real Estate .
Thanks for giving us a great overall picture of the issue, from both a technical and business perspective. I still would like to see our bands used for the public good. If there is this much money to be made, more business entities will creep in. I am also concerned that intentional jamming with cheap equipment will create even more issues. A solution would be for the SEC to add a time delay on all transactions to level the playing field. No time advantage- no money- no problem.
Dave, Greetings. I really appreciate Your very thought out presentation. It was enjoyable as always. That is the reason that I tune in to Your channel. I disagree with Your conclusion but I enjoyed it just the same. I believe that the more detailed thoughtful information that can be gleaned the better prepared a person is to understand. Thank You and 73, JR
Thanks! People need to understand this. You do a very good job of explaining this to normal people. I've been watching your videos for a long time. Keep up the good work!
I understand the consortium wanting to regularise their temporary licence because it does not presently allow them to make money. They need to be non-experimental and fully approved to make money. My concern is that this is a "toe in the door" after which they will want to expand their allocation of the spectrum and the power that they use. I would be surprised if they remain content with the initial allocation and will want to "grow their service"; which is typical of financial institutions.
We are losing sight of the big picture. This should not even be a discussion. The amateur bands are supposed to be free of commercial interests. Full stop. And all engineering discussion aside, this is one of those "give them an inch, and they will take a mile". The FCC needs to stomp this. And people who are "freaking out" are justified in doing so, in my opinion. It's not about this exact situation, it's about the overall allowing in of commercial interest in the amateur radio bands. It won't be long at this rate, before the FCC just decides that the amateur bands are no longer important for this hobby and just sell them like they do all the others. This is not the time to be "calm and collected and break down the situation ", this is a time to tell the FCC to knock it off. There's plenty of space outside of the amateur bands for them to do their stock market crap.
The QPSK mode of PSK31 uses a convolution code for error correction and Viterbi decoding. The Joe Taylor stuff uses mostly linear codes (LDPC for FT8) and belief propagation based decoders. Since you have a background in this I'd love to see a video on it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Thank you, Dave, for a calm, rational discussion. One issue that I see in the RM is the importance the consortium gives to "low-latency" communication, without defining what they mean by it, and without saying how much latency they intend their system to provide. The communication path they plan to use is skywave, which has a transmission delay measurable in milliseconds. That transmission delay varies with the height of the ionosphere, and changes as the gray line moves around the earth. Solar flares will likely disrupt the transmission delay as they disrupt the ionosphere. So I would like to see the consortium's data on low-latency transmission. 73AB5XZ
The reason for concern here is the creation of a slippery slope. The entire HF spectrum is just 27 MHz wide. The appeal of being able to generate money, and lots of it "out of thin air", is so seductive that millions will want to get in on it. It is only a matter of time until the entire HF spectrum is bought up. The FCC operates in only one country; HF generated anywhere on the planet will land in your backyard.
The proposed maximum spurious emission level of -35dB is well above ITU standards and is not low enough to ensure that transmissions will not cause interference to other radio services, particularly when made adjacent to the bottom or top of amateur radio frequency allocations. At 20KW PEP, a -35 dB of spurious emissions is equal to 6.33 watts, which will be well above the noise floor in many locations. It is not unusual for amateur radio operators to comfortably make cross country or trans oceanic contacts using power levels of 5W or less. And people get upset about the spurs from baofengs! The biggest issue is, however, that the second another method is devised that can shave a few more microseconds off the latency, the radio technology will be immediately abandoned in favor of whatever Shiny New Thing™ gives them a greater advantage and therefore greater profit opportunity. Granting a rule that allows them to destroy others fair use of the shared space for temporary increases in profit is not in the "public interest", in my opinion.
Dave and all, there is an important aspect to this story that was omitted. High Frequency Trading gives a huge benefit to the stock markets: Liquidity. This means that whenever you want to buy or sell a "mainstream" equity or option (e.g. Covered Calls), you're much more likely to get filled at a fair price. Before HFT, the bid-ask spread was typically very wide due to low volume. If the mid-price of a stock was $100, you might have to pay $103 to buy it or take $97 to sell it. The market makers would make a KILLING on the spread! With HFT the bid-ask spread in AAPL is only $0.01 wide and therefore, in order to make a profit, the market makers need to increase their volume. Are the market makers more greedy now than they were before HFT? I think it's the same level of greed, but in a much more competitive market. Anyone who buys or sells stock and/or options, or has it done on their behalf, benefits from a consistently better price. If there is no clear harm to ham radio, this might be a good thing for the 50% of people in this country that regularly conduct transactions in the stock market, either directly or indirectly.
So to summarize: 1. No public benefit, 2. Potentially interferes with a service that has a public benefit. 3. Is helping the Saudis, dictators who are aligning more and with Russia. I'm glad I filed my comment several weeks ago.
It’s hard to believe it can still be faster with all the filtering, error correction, and digital processing involved. And what prevents malicious entities (foreign or domestic) from intentionally interfering with or outright jamming of the links. Just a few retries or more extensive post-processing would negate the speed advantage. I personally don’t see it being a long-lived project. Something better will come along and replace it.
Dave, your comments are not in line with the last minute analysis by the ARRL. I have respect for you and I know that will follow up with a correction (and likely an apology to you know who).
Excellent Video Dave, and provokes more questions, and your correct, there very little public good generated by this system! It just a way of cheating, that’s why horse racing results are delayed! Some people are always looking for a way to make more money (the root of all evil) in my opinion, I’ve said enough and I’ll shut up now! Continued great success and happiness in your life, Dave!!
Dear dave..., thanks for your scope , hopefully youtube still not cancel these episode as well like others with the same view, please consider all ham bands are commercial money tools until ham community themself protect our genuine spectrum right, if FCC release hands in these issue it will affects all han bands in central and south America too.., so it`s hot issue ..., thanks YV6ENB
There seems to be a common misunderstanding about the digital signals and amateur signals power levels, in that hams are licensed to 1.5kw peak power, while the consortium is specifying 20kw *average* power. The peak to average ratios of these digital signals can be 10dB or more, meaning power levels of 200kw peak. They are also proposing the out of band signal attenuation rules be relaxed from -73dB to -50dB. Finally, signal leakage into the ham band was noted in the one instance when transmissions were able to be monitored and measured.
"hams are licensed to 1.5kw peak power, while the consortium is specifying 20kw average power. " Peak Envelope Power is still RMS power, measured at the peak of modulation. A digital signal is always at peak modulation, thus 20 kilowatts RMS sustained where SSB peaks at 1.5 kilowatts but on *average* is about one tenth that; as you noted.
Since this use of HF radio involves high speed trading, won't the Security and Exchange Comission also need to appove the use of this system, regulate who controls this system and designate the organizations and individuals who can use the trading data being transmitted?
Trellis encoding/decoding has been used in dial up modems for about the last 40 years, I don't know the extent of the testing and how many sites were used. Other services such as DSL have had a negative impact on many ham radio users particularly on the HF bands. It would be very negligent not to properly assess the impact before allowing this service to operate. Part of the motivation of course is not just circumventing the velocity factor of the optical cables but also to avoid the latency of switches and routers in the normal data path.
Dave, I agree with your analysis but I would add something. We all see the issue as amateur radio operators, and It might not affect our bands, but how will It affect users of the Part 90 segments? Marine and industrial users will have to share frequencies with this digital signals 50KHz wide. If we add all part 90 segments, It's less than 10MHz. That would mean that at most 200 signals could exist in perfect imaginary conditions on all bands and without any other users and possibly worldwide. That might not be an efficient use of the spectrum as they claim. They also claim interference prevention systems but no technical information is provided about that. So the question is if the system could detect and avoid interfering with a narrow band signal like CW? And to finish. Who says that if the get what they want they will not come with more money for the HAM bands next? Regards and 73
Does the consortium need (or already have) authorization from the FCC’s counterpart agencies in other countries for this type of use of the HF spectrum?
In my favorite travel spot, in South Asia, a friend of mine makes a living in their economy by going to the city fruit market and buying the day's worth of fresh fruit and carting it over to the other side of town and selling it on the street side at a competitive price there. He is arbitraging the price of fruit for the convenience of the local neighborhood who can walk up to buy. Distance is a key element to setting up arbitrage. The owner of Dollar General as I understand it, is a billionaire, arbitraging goods for the convenience of rural customers versus the larger city oriented retailers.
David, good information and well framed -but- I remain concerned. Perhaps you have reviewed their empirical data on "experimentation"? Based on the proposal there's nothing there that describes the conditions of the actual experimentation. Was this in "production" doing actual HFT or more of a test environment? At what power level, what antenna, was this 7/24 or short duration? Was there extensive freq hoping that interference would be illusive? None of this is evident in RM-11953. The actual station setup and conditions needs to be exposed. Now, the flip side is...assuming this were to actually be formalized and proved to be highly successful, it's conceivable the bands will get flooded with competitors and quickly. I remain concerned, and filed a comment to the FCC as such. Cheers.
Thanks, Dave! A Very reassuring explanation, versus what I saw on another RUclips channel about this that was submerged in "PANIC"! After watching the other video, I suddenly remembered "BPL" Broadband Over Powerline and wondered what happened to that! I remember Hams and CBrs alike freaking out that we'd lose our part of the radio spectrum and all of our equipment would end up going to the scrap yard! That was back in the early 2000s. 🤣🤣🤣 Thanks again for quelling the madness with a better explanation than what I've seen elsewhere. KD8EFQ/73
I can tell you firsthand that the BPL had technical issues which prevented it from becoming economically feasible. The electrical transformers which are used to drop the voltage down to 120Vac at the customer, blocked BPL. It killed the business model because you really could only get into the neighborhood but not to the customers' door. I worked for an electrical utility that tried it and failed.
Hi Dave love your videos your sound is much much better on this video, on I think 2 of your previous shows you where on the thresh-hold of distorting much better back from the mike a bit thank you very much and best 73's Joe
I posted a comment on Jim the Ham Radio Elmore about this subject .. and I have the same thing to say here... How about some real tests following good engineering practices to show results for and against the new station will cause interference. I would like to see some data from tests that I can reproduce.... example noise figures of the receiving equipment, antennas, etc. We must t not get caught up in words. We need subjective tests.. with details..... your thoughts ?
Dave I appreciate your financial analysis of the situation. My concern is when big money and big government get together, us little Amateur Radio Operators will eventually suffer band loss! “Give ‘em an inch and they’ll take a Mile”. I guess they call it a “slippery slope” argument these days.
When I worked in shortwave radio TCI was the maker of our two commercial antennas. Look up TCI-611. I got to hook my TS-140 to that thing. Pretty cool. Rhode also makes TV and FM transmitters. I currently take care of a Rohde TV transmitter at work. It is nice to finally have a solid state transmitter although it is still liquid cooled. What frequencies are they wanting to use?
The notice includes an appendix with a list of frequencies. Many of them abut amateur bands and the permitted sidebands will spill up to 100 kilohertz into the ham bands; there is no guard band.
Compared to Xiegu, the ic-7300 is vastly superior. But the bandpass filters in the ic-7300 are octave filters designed to admit, in succession, the entire HF spectrum. As I live half a mile from an AM transmitter site and less than that from a substation, I cannot use a normal dipole antenna anyway so I use a mag loop and it is wonderfully selective and eliminates front end overload. But this proposal allows for sidebands and spurious radiation to intrude up to 100 kilohertz into either end the ham bands. For instance, the proposal includes a band that stops at 14000 KHz and resumes at 14350 KHz, the sidebands thus intrude all the way to 14100 KHz and start again at 14250 KHz.
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_ AND _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._
How many of these stations will exist and where will they be? I understand they will be jumping frequencies, what are those frequencies. Are the capitalists sharing with others? Will data other than this be exchanged? Is it fully automatic,
at 11:25, you state that the public benefit of HFT and using HF for these purposes is "baloney", this simply isn't true. Arbritrage is a vital service indeed. Trading between exchanges (or market makers as you call them, which is a not technically correct) smoothes out prices for all enttities sold on these exchanges leading to PRICE DISCOVERY, which is the very essence of a true FREE MARKET. The market requires price discovery so that people around the world can properly prioritize where to apply their finite capital. Without price discovery misallocations can take place. Back to why your definition of "exchange" is not the same as "market maker". An exchange is simply a platform that buyers and sellers meet and perform exchanges. A market maker, in contrast, is specifically the entity that agrees to take the other side of the bet. This is typically a customer of the exchange and not the exchange itself.
He didn’t say that the public benefit was baloney; he said that the statement that public benefit is “manifestly” apparent is baloney. He also said that it benefits only the people doing it. There, I agree with you that more efficient trading benefits society.
@@SMShannon55remember very few average consumers have any knowledge of how the markets work. Myself included.. Often Dave will "taylor" his statements to his expected audience....thanks for the info !
Freak Out Over RM-11953!!! I didn't know HAM radio was all about stocks, and trading.......Let's keep it all separate. If they want it legal, let them do it on another frequency.
You did a great job on a lot of it but did not cover how many more of their broadcasting sites would be set up worldwide. The experiments when have they run them, how long would they now be broadcasting and are their test providing true data.
Thank you for this excellent video explaining, calmly and sensibly, the issue. I can't help but think of this “new” HFT service going into operation only to find that interference (perhaps jamming (either intentional or accidental) by a disgruntled HAM or a competitor revving up an old motorbike without a suppressor on the ignition close to the receiving station) causes the system to not function as intended. Fibre optic cables can't be jammed even if they are a tad slower.... HAM radio will always exist. 73.
Anyone else thinking HFT seems wrong. I understand that free markets are based on FCFS, but still the software doing the trading for you seems like an unfair advantage...IDK?
Difficult to see any public benefit to this - in the USA or worldwide. This is all about money however and money talks. Watch for dollars flowing to FCC staff - I hope not but watch closely for it.
So I haven't been following this issue so much but I have to say the title of this video is needlessly inflammatory and dismissive of the concerns of a lot of the other youtubers in this sphere. We shouldn't be picking fights with each other in this hobby we should be lifting each other up.
Thank you for a well researched and thought out review. My friends involved in the stock market have all sorts obnoxious remarks about these so-and-soes. I will refrain. Thanks again. Godspeed and keep up the good work. N0QFT
Thank you for being the voice of reason. Too many ham radio RUclips channels have become like unskilled media....using FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, and DOUBT (FUD) to get clicks to watch their VERY irresponsible fatalistic, albeit ignorant, content.
Can the FCC even make a decision about that? A novel use of HF bands affects the whole world. Looks like something that requires international coordination.
You might want to read more into this. High frequency trading should be illegal in the first place. So they people behind this are criminals they don't care about us or our frequencies. There is a lot money behind this and that never goes well. Read the AARL response about the amount of creep on our bands and the spurious emissions
High frequency trading should be illegal. Computer algorithms trading should be illegal. Computers can trade so fast that it is pure market manipulation.
@@craigm7513 That is true, the last time I got my license it was still free, at the comments time for the $35 charge I protested because a young person may not get into the hobby because of the charge, but I knew it was necessary to start paying employees to process paperwork. I'm not sure how much the FCC will earn from these corporations, but as you said, it won't be peanuts.73's🎙KD9OAM
"Let's All Freak Out Over RM-11953, Shall We?" There is no WE. Freak out, or not, as you please. I suspect it will become an annoyance that one has to live with, like the Russian Woodpecker. I also suspect it won't be as useful as claimed for its claimed purpose, which suggests it isn't about stock trading but a way to change the FCC rules for a purpose not obvious at present.
World will be much better place if the minimum financial investment period would be at least 24h. Or better one month. Now we reached the point when company profit gain is easier via stock market than invest in innovations and new products.
I s this the same guy who said the dx commander was crap, I know who I would rather listen too and the latest video from that said gentleman and I mean gentleman makes you look like a fool .
Thanks for your approach to this Dave. You, Josh from HRCC and Erick from Ham Radio Concepts have a logical approach to the subject. It’s nice to not have another tuber making doom and gloom video for views.
If you own securities through a fund, or receive a pension or annuity based on such a fund, you benefit directly or indirectly from the market efficiency that HFT facilitates.
Dave, I am running 7/8 inch heliax 155 feet from my house to my tower. Do I ground the sheilds at both ends or just one? I've heard pros and cons for either way. I use Times Microwave ground kits on all my coax feeds. Thank you.
20kW with a 10dB antenna is a BEAST ... effectively 200,000 watts. To me, that is the issue. They aren't using anywhere near 20kW in their experimental tests, so who knows when they fire up full power. To me, that is the issue. Also, in my professional capacity, I've seen people like AT&T utterly screw over the 2 GHz Band because of a lack of an effective "guard channel". As a result of only having a very narrow difference is that the top and bottom channels of the 2 GHz band are practically unusable. The FCC has said that AT&T have to pay for filters, but in practice, these filters do next to nothing since a filter has "roll off" and doesn't have a vertical cliff in filtering.
These people have other methods to get their data out, they are just trying to save a couple milliseconds to make money.
And…when one of the petitioners was fined $67,000,000 in 2019 over an admission f stock trade fraud perpetuated on consumers, would you trust them to play by the weak rules proposed here?
Dave, many decades ago, I was involved in engineering some of the first digital microwave systems in this country, and will take you at your word that you can pontificate for hours on the eb/no advantages of this modulation scheme, or that convolutional coding scheme, but damn it Dave, the question here isn't just TECHNICAL -- sure, it CAN be done... but SHOULD it be done? My considered opinion, based on 40 years experience, is HELL NO, because inevitably there WILL be at least SOME cross-band interference, and even if it's kept to only moderately destructive levels, this is a STUPID, TOTALLY UNNECESSARY, WASTEFUL, UNETHICAL, AND MOST LIKELY, ILLEGAL USE OF SPECTRUM -- given that it seems to have the single and sole purpose of helping one group of those wonderful "Rich men North of Richmond" the song talks about, to gain an unfair advantage over their fellow sleazy a-holes, by shaving a few milliseconds off data transport propagation delay times so they can better "game the system". First time I ran into this kind of silly stupidity, was several years back when I got involved in the engineering support for a similar venture involving a digital microwave link moving financial trade information. I couldn't see how the economics could work, since, bit for bit, mile for mile, fiber communications has become thousands of times more economical, but I wasn't considering just how far those scheming, scamming "Rich Men North of Richmond" types are willing to go to gain a crooked advantage. You see, It's all about the difference between the speed of light in optical fiber cable (about 2/3 C), vs the speed of light in air (about 99.99 percent of C) which lets them shave a few milliseconds off the data propagation delay so their sleazy computer trading algorithms can screw over other traders a little more effectively. We didn't get the contract, which was fine with me, as I considered the whole thing a scam. You would think that with the "Crypto King" now possibly facing more than a century in prison, that enthusiasm for these kinds of scams would have faded -- but apparently not.
Dave, with all due respect, the situation is more serious and is deserving more attention than you convey. This is not "something they have been doing all along, and no one has noticed" . This is 20 KW at a much wider bandwidth than before. This is with more serious EIRP, effectively. Did you read the "PETITION FOR RULEMAKING
OF THE SHORTWAVE MODERNIZATION COALITION" end to end? I did, multiple times. Many generalizations and examples of "hand-waving". Did you read the ARRL response ?? I did as well, multiple times. And after checking their simulations- all of which I am familiar with, having worked in the EMI field- have determined that the Mr Hare's analysis is correct. He was completely correct about BPL, remember that? Did you do a detailed propagation analysis?? I do not see that. What I did hear was a purely verbal explanation, mostly about the application itself, without mathematical backup about the RFI aspects that should concern us. I think we should expect more than that before making up our minds.
In conclusion, if they do get permission granted, it means there will be wholesale interference on our band edges, extending well into the bands themselves.
Dave, thanks for the calm analysis on this issue. I agree that greed is the root but I also believe the "potential" for interference is there and shouldn't be ignored. There is also the "possibility" of more requests like this in the future that might even take away portions of the amateur bands for commercial purposes. I am NOT saying this will happen or that I even believe it will, just that the possibility exists. Greed has a way of making it's own rules. Thanks for another great video. Jack K5FIT
I don't like HST. Here's why. Stocks function to allow companies to raise funds by selling themselves. Stocks also allow owners to participate in the governance of companies they own. Both parties stand to make financial gains from the deal. This breaks down when companies take actions to prevent owners from participating and when owners don't participate. HST prevents both benefits and amplifies greed and corruption. I am personally for a requirement that stock purchasers own stock for a minimum time and that a random time delay be added to every trade execution. I know this won't happen since there's so much money at stake. I'm against the enactment of something like RM-11953 because it benefits the people who least need it.
If they get it going, With the big money they have, they can tell people to just live with any trouble to Ham Radio!
Thanks Dave! It seems then the real negative with the proposal is not so much RF related as much as it is not in the publics interest. It serves only a few, and not necessarily US based benefactors.
They've been doing it, but I heard that they've just used 100W or so. 20kW can come with literally orders of magnitude more problems.
well at -35 db harmonic suppression of 200kw ERP, you're looking at 63 watts that is not where its supposed to be...
You can't see the inch turning into the mile here? Just look what has happened to the rest of the spectrum, it's being sold for tens of millions. You don't think someone at the FCC is getting their back rubbed?
Thanks!
Thanks!
I submitted my comments on this and one of my concerns basically is that their signal is now in an 'open' environment, thus subject to possible nefarious agents with aims to jam signals with 'dirty' transmitters which might set hams up for another Russian Woodpecker from spurious signals. Thanks for your research.
can you explain in better detail? I am familiar with the Russian Woodpecker. However, I am not so familiar with how your rational plays out.
Thanks for a calm, well-reasoned explanation. I still have some concern, though, that this has the potential of being the camel's nose under the tent. The 1% behind this is not well-known for high standards of conduct, much less civic-mindedness, in my not so humble opinion. Let us hope that the RM is subjected to rigorous evaluation, not just a rubber stamp due to the money involved.
@@patrickwagner9729 And that rubber stamp is exactly the problem. I make it a point of practice never to join public hysterias -- they almost always lead to personal embarrassment -- but I share your concerns about the relatively honesty of the players in question.
Still say no: it's a slippery slope. If this is granted, what other greedy businesses will take advantage of this lower latency until all of HF is taken over? To me it has nothing to do with ham radio but about corporate greed.
Thanks David! We need this calm, rational, well-thought out view of this proposal.
I'm with you, Dave. Not a big fan of greedy people or their attempts to use technology to gain an unfair advantage over John Q. Public.
Dave KI7HSB
Thank You .
Dave Thanks for the video. For all the information you included, you did miss two details. First, the 20KW is in RMS, not peak envelope power. So the power output is even more substantial compared to a hams signal. Second, they mention that "This could lead to wider adoption of 2-25 MHz Band transmission systems in industries such as manufacturing, petroleum, or mining, or by other firms that do business in global trouble spots and need or desire to avoid reliance upon vulnerable alternative facilities (e.g., satellite, terrestrial/subsea fiber)." This would be an attempt to show its use for the greater good. I don't know if it's enough but there is more than you mentioned. My last comment is we need to consider how this could be used in the future. The consortium could turn out to be respectful in their use of the spectrum and not be a problem but this doesn't mean future groups will be. Especially if it's mining or manufacturing groups that don't have an unlimited budget. Then corners will be cut and issues could arise. With the loose limits they are asking for hams wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I'm not completely against the change I just think it needs to be reeled in a bit.
Dave,
Thanks for your calm, detailed analysis of the issue.
Brilliant discussion - thanks David!
The problem with this is that it will open the floodgates.
Well , just sitting by calmly and trusting the government appointed officials will not work . Hams are not pouring $$$ into the FCC so . . . BUT , we are the ones that have effectively run "tests" on these bands for decades and made it such tempting Real Estate .
Thanks for giving us a great overall picture of the issue, from both a technical and business perspective.
I still would like to see our bands used for the public good. If there is this much money to be made, more business entities will creep in.
I am also concerned that intentional jamming with cheap equipment will create even more issues.
A solution would be for the SEC to add a time delay on all transactions to level the playing field. No time advantage- no money- no problem.
Dave, this is an incredible video! It combines two of my interests: amateur radio and finance! Thanks for taking the time to make it!
This is the best video on this topic so far. Thank you for your level-headed analysis and taking the time to put this all together
Dave,
Greetings. I really appreciate Your very thought out presentation. It was enjoyable as always. That is the reason that I tune in to Your channel. I disagree with Your conclusion but I enjoyed it just the same. I believe that the more detailed thoughtful information that can be gleaned the better prepared a person is to understand.
Thank You and 73,
JR
Most informative video yet Dave. Bravo!
Thanks! People need to understand this. You do a very good job of explaining this to normal people. I've been watching your videos for a long time. Keep up the good work!
Thank you for your financial support of this channel! It is greatly appreciated! 73, Dave, KE0OG.
I understand the consortium wanting to regularise their temporary licence because it does not presently allow them to make money. They need to be non-experimental and fully approved to make money.
My concern is that this is a "toe in the door" after which they will want to expand their allocation of the spectrum and the power that they use. I would be surprised if they remain content with the initial allocation and will want to "grow their service"; which is typical of financial institutions.
I don't think Jim was freaking out. It's a pretty well thought out position. The risk of interference seems high enough that we need to be concerned.
Agreed
I say no.don't let them do it.
We are losing sight of the big picture. This should not even be a discussion. The amateur bands are supposed to be free of commercial interests. Full stop. And all engineering discussion aside, this is one of those "give them an inch, and they will take a mile". The FCC needs to stomp this. And people who are "freaking out" are justified in doing so, in my opinion. It's not about this exact situation, it's about the overall allowing in of commercial interest in the amateur radio bands. It won't be long at this rate, before the FCC just decides that the amateur bands are no longer important for this hobby and just sell them like they do all the others. This is not the time to be "calm and collected and break down the situation ", this is a time to tell
the FCC to knock it off. There's plenty of space outside of the amateur bands for them to do their stock market crap.
Thanks for the clarification on this issue, Dave.
What freq band are they going to use this new service?
The QPSK mode of PSK31 uses a convolution code for error correction and Viterbi decoding. The Joe Taylor stuff uses mostly linear codes (LDPC for FT8) and belief propagation based decoders. Since you have a background in this I'd love to see a video on it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Thank you, Dave, for a calm, rational discussion. One issue that I see in the RM is the importance the consortium gives to "low-latency" communication, without defining what they mean by it, and without saying how much latency they intend their system to provide. The communication path they plan to use is skywave, which has a transmission delay measurable in milliseconds. That transmission delay varies with the height of the ionosphere, and changes as the gray line moves around the earth. Solar flares will likely disrupt the transmission delay as they disrupt the ionosphere. So I would like to see the consortium's data on low-latency transmission. 73AB5XZ
The reason for concern here is the creation of a slippery slope. The entire HF spectrum is just 27 MHz wide. The appeal of being able to generate money, and lots of it "out of thin air", is so seductive that millions will want to get in on it. It is only a matter of time until the entire HF spectrum is bought up. The FCC operates in only one country; HF generated anywhere on the planet will land in your backyard.
Thanks Dave
The proposed maximum spurious emission level of -35dB is well above ITU standards and is not low enough to ensure that transmissions will not cause interference to other radio services, particularly when made adjacent to the bottom or top of amateur radio frequency allocations. At 20KW PEP, a -35 dB of spurious emissions is equal to 6.33 watts, which will be well above the noise floor in many locations. It is not unusual for amateur radio operators to comfortably make cross country or trans oceanic contacts using power levels of 5W or less. And people get upset about the spurs from baofengs!
The biggest issue is, however, that the second another method is devised that can shave a few more microseconds off the latency, the radio technology will be immediately abandoned in favor of whatever Shiny New Thing™ gives them a greater advantage and therefore greater profit opportunity. Granting a rule that allows them to destroy others fair use of the shared space for temporary increases in profit is not in the "public interest", in my opinion.
Thank you for doing this explanation
Dave and all, there is an important aspect to this story that was omitted. High Frequency Trading gives a huge benefit to the stock markets: Liquidity. This means that whenever you want to buy or sell a "mainstream" equity or option (e.g. Covered Calls), you're much more likely to get filled at a fair price. Before HFT, the bid-ask spread was typically very wide due to low volume. If the mid-price of a stock was $100, you might have to pay $103 to buy it or take $97 to sell it. The market makers would make a KILLING on the spread! With HFT the bid-ask spread in AAPL is only $0.01 wide and therefore, in order to make a profit, the market makers need to increase their volume.
Are the market makers more greedy now than they were before HFT? I think it's the same level of greed, but in a much more competitive market.
Anyone who buys or sells stock and/or options, or has it done on their behalf, benefits from a consistently better price.
If there is no clear harm to ham radio, this might be a good thing for the 50% of people in this country that regularly conduct transactions in the stock market, either directly or indirectly.
Thanks Dave for talking me away from the edge of the roof.
So to summarize: 1. No public benefit, 2. Potentially interferes with a service that has a public benefit. 3. Is helping the Saudis, dictators who are aligning more and with Russia.
I'm glad I filed my comment several weeks ago.
It’s hard to believe it can still be faster with all the filtering, error correction, and digital processing involved.
And what prevents malicious entities (foreign or domestic) from intentionally interfering with or outright jamming of the links. Just a few retries or more extensive post-processing would negate the speed advantage. I personally don’t see it being a long-lived project. Something better will come along and replace it.
Dave, your comments are not in line with the last minute analysis by the ARRL. I have respect for you and I know that will follow up with a correction (and likely an apology to you know who).
Excellent Video Dave, and provokes more questions, and your correct, there very little public good generated by this system! It just a way of cheating, that’s why horse racing results are delayed! Some people are always looking for a way to make more money (the root of all evil) in my opinion, I’ve said enough and I’ll shut up now! Continued great success and happiness in your life, Dave!!
Dear dave..., thanks for your scope , hopefully youtube still not cancel these episode as well like others with the same view, please consider all ham bands are commercial money tools until ham community themself protect our genuine spectrum right, if FCC release hands in these issue it will affects all han bands in central and south America too.., so it`s hot issue ..., thanks YV6ENB
Thank you for a clear description of this Rule Making.
There seems to be a common misunderstanding about the digital signals and amateur signals power levels, in that hams are licensed to 1.5kw peak power, while the consortium is specifying 20kw *average* power. The peak to average ratios of these digital signals can be 10dB or more, meaning power levels of 200kw peak. They are also proposing the out of band signal attenuation rules be relaxed from -73dB to -50dB. Finally, signal leakage into the ham band was noted in the one instance when transmissions were able to be monitored and measured.
"hams are licensed to 1.5kw peak power, while the consortium is specifying 20kw average power. "
Peak Envelope Power is still RMS power, measured at the peak of modulation. A digital signal is always at peak modulation, thus 20 kilowatts RMS sustained where SSB peaks at 1.5 kilowatts but on *average* is about one tenth that; as you noted.
Since this use of HF radio involves high speed trading, won't the Security and Exchange Comission also need to appove the use of this system, regulate who controls this system and designate the organizations and individuals who can use the trading data being transmitted?
Trellis encoding/decoding has been used in dial up modems for about the last 40 years, I don't know the extent of the testing and how many sites were used. Other services such as DSL have had a negative impact on many ham radio users particularly on the HF bands. It would be very negligent not to properly assess the impact before allowing this service to operate. Part of the motivation of course is not just circumventing the velocity factor of the optical cables but also to avoid the latency of switches and routers in the normal data path.
If only the FCC would grant them trouble areas like 7200 and 3827. 😂
Dave, I agree with your analysis but I would add something. We all see the issue as amateur radio operators, and It might not affect our bands, but how will It affect users of the Part 90 segments? Marine and industrial users will have to share frequencies with this digital signals 50KHz wide. If we add all part 90 segments, It's less than 10MHz. That would mean that at most 200 signals could exist in perfect imaginary conditions on all bands and without any other users and possibly worldwide. That might not be an efficient use of the spectrum as they claim. They also claim interference prevention systems but no technical information is provided about that. So the question is if the system could detect and avoid interfering with a narrow band signal like CW? And to finish. Who says that if the get what they want they will not come with more money for the HAM bands next? Regards and 73
Dave, you have provided a very informative explanation of the issue at hand. I applaud and thank you for taking time to make this video. 73 Mike/W5SKK
The fact that they have already been doing it without anyone pin pointing an issue with it leads me to think it will get passed... Great video Dave...
But as they say in financial fine print "Past performance does not guarantee future performance."
They have been testing at ridiculously low power…. Comprehension issues?
What a strange world. Only Money, Money, Money…More, more, more and more🤑🤑🤑🤢
Hi Dave,
My only concern is that there was no testing at the power levels and ERP that will be used. 73 WJ3U
Does the consortium need (or already have) authorization from the FCC’s counterpart agencies in other countries for this type of use of the HF spectrum?
In my favorite travel spot, in South Asia, a friend of mine makes a living in their economy by going to the city fruit market and buying the day's worth of fresh fruit and carting it over to the other side of town and selling it on the street side at a competitive price there. He is arbitraging the price of fruit for the convenience of the local neighborhood who can walk up to buy. Distance is a key element to setting up arbitrage. The owner of Dollar General as I understand it, is a billionaire, arbitraging goods for the convenience of rural customers versus the larger city oriented retailers.
David, good information and well framed -but- I remain concerned. Perhaps you have reviewed their empirical data on "experimentation"? Based on the proposal there's nothing there that describes the conditions of the actual experimentation. Was this in "production" doing actual HFT or more of a test environment? At what power level, what antenna, was this 7/24 or short duration? Was there extensive freq hoping that interference would be illusive? None of this is evident in RM-11953. The actual station setup and conditions needs to be exposed. Now, the flip side is...assuming this were to actually be formalized and proved to be highly successful, it's conceivable the bands will get flooded with competitors and quickly. I remain concerned, and filed a comment to the FCC as such. Cheers.
Thanks, Dave! A Very reassuring explanation, versus what I saw on another RUclips channel about this that was submerged in "PANIC"!
After watching the other video, I suddenly remembered "BPL" Broadband Over Powerline and wondered what happened to that!
I remember Hams and CBrs alike freaking out that we'd lose our part of the radio spectrum and all of our equipment would end up going to the scrap yard! That was back in the early 2000s. 🤣🤣🤣
Thanks again for quelling the madness with a better explanation than what I've seen elsewhere.
KD8EFQ/73
I can tell you firsthand that the BPL had technical issues which prevented it from becoming economically feasible. The electrical transformers which are used to drop the voltage down to 120Vac at the customer, blocked BPL. It killed the business model because you really could only get into the neighborhood but not to the customers' door. I worked for an electrical utility that tried it and failed.
Hi Dave love your videos your sound is much much better on this video, on I think 2 of your previous shows you where on the thresh-hold of distorting much better back from the mike a bit thank you very much and best 73's Joe
My only concern is the effect this will have on ham radio.
I posted a comment on Jim the Ham Radio Elmore about this subject .. and I have the same thing to say here... How about some real tests following good engineering practices to show results for and against the new station will cause interference. I would like to see some data from tests that I can reproduce.... example noise figures of the receiving equipment, antennas, etc. We must t not get caught up in words. We need subjective tests.. with details..... your thoughts ?
Sorry ... we need objective tests.
Has anyone seen or confirmed the experimental license?
A great review once again! Thanks Dave!
Dave I appreciate your financial analysis of the situation. My concern is when big money and big government get together, us little Amateur Radio Operators will eventually suffer band loss! “Give ‘em an inch and they’ll take a Mile”. I guess they call it a “slippery slope” argument these days.
Hi Dave --- do they use that much transmit power now? Or will it increase if they get their way? TT
After looking at this more, we should be worried. There is a lot more going on than he sees.
When I worked in shortwave radio TCI was the maker of our two commercial antennas. Look up TCI-611. I got to hook my TS-140 to that thing. Pretty cool. Rhode also makes TV and FM transmitters. I currently take care of a Rohde TV transmitter at work. It is nice to finally have a solid state transmitter although it is still liquid cooled. What frequencies are they wanting to use?
The notice includes an appendix with a list of frequencies. Many of them abut amateur bands and the permitted sidebands will spill up to 100 kilohertz into the ham bands; there is no guard band.
@@thomasmaughan4798 Thanks for the info!
Fundamental overload can still be an issue for low cost SDRs like the IC-7300 that does not have a lot of front end filtering. Bill, W6QR
Compared to Xiegu, the ic-7300 is vastly superior. But the bandpass filters in the ic-7300 are octave filters designed to admit, in succession, the entire HF spectrum.
As I live half a mile from an AM transmitter site and less than that from a substation, I cannot use a normal dipole antenna anyway so I use a mag loop and it is wonderfully selective and eliminates front end overload.
But this proposal allows for sidebands and spurious radiation to intrude up to 100 kilohertz into either end the ham bands. For instance, the proposal includes a band that stops at 14000 KHz and resumes at 14350 KHz, the sidebands thus intrude all the way to 14100 KHz and start again at 14250 KHz.
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_
AND
_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._
How many of these stations will exist and where will they be? I understand they will be jumping frequencies, what are those frequencies. Are the capitalists sharing with others? Will data other than this be exchanged? Is it fully automatic,
at 11:25, you state that the public benefit of HFT and using HF for these purposes is "baloney", this simply isn't true. Arbritrage is a vital service indeed. Trading between exchanges (or market makers as you call them, which is a not technically correct) smoothes out prices for all enttities sold on these exchanges leading to PRICE DISCOVERY, which is the very essence of a true FREE MARKET. The market requires price discovery so that people around the world can properly prioritize where to apply their finite capital. Without price discovery misallocations can take place. Back to why your definition of "exchange" is not the same as "market maker". An exchange is simply a platform that buyers and sellers meet and perform exchanges. A market maker, in contrast, is specifically the entity that agrees to take the other side of the bet. This is typically a customer of the exchange and not the exchange itself.
He didn’t say that the public benefit was baloney; he said that the statement that public benefit is “manifestly” apparent is baloney. He also said that it benefits only the people doing it. There, I agree with you that more efficient trading benefits society.
@@SMShannon55remember very few average consumers have any knowledge of how the markets work. Myself included..
Often Dave will "taylor" his statements to his expected audience....thanks for the info !
The ARRL agree with JIM W6LG about ARRL filing about RM-11953. Yor were wrong and you should tell him that.
Goto Jim W6LG ARRL filing about RM-11953. and get the truth
Freak Out Over RM-11953!!! I didn't know HAM radio was all about stocks, and trading.......Let's keep it all separate. If they want it legal, let them do it on another frequency.
You did a great job on a lot of it but did not cover how many more of their broadcasting sites would be set up worldwide. The experiments when have they run them, how long would they now be broadcasting and are their test providing true data.
Thank you for this excellent video explaining, calmly and sensibly, the issue. I can't help but think of this “new” HFT service going into operation only to find that interference (perhaps jamming (either intentional or accidental) by a disgruntled HAM or a competitor revving up an old motorbike without a suppressor on the ignition close to the receiving station) causes the system to not function as intended. Fibre optic cables can't be jammed even if they are a tad slower.... HAM radio will always exist. 73.
Well done Dave, as always!! 73/K6SDW
When have you ever known where what is good for we the people trumps the greedy?
Anyone else thinking HFT seems wrong. I understand that free markets are based on FCFS, but still the software doing the trading for you seems like an unfair advantage...IDK?
Difficult to see any public benefit to this - in the USA or worldwide. This is all about money however and money talks. Watch for dollars flowing to FCC staff - I hope not but watch closely for it.
good job of explaining RM-11953!
So I haven't been following this issue so much but I have to say the title of this video is needlessly inflammatory and dismissive of the concerns of a lot of the other youtubers in this sphere. We shouldn't be picking fights with each other in this hobby we should be lifting each other up.
Thank you for a well researched and thought out review.
My friends involved in the stock market have all sorts obnoxious remarks about these so-and-soes. I will refrain.
Thanks again. Godspeed and keep up the good work. N0QFT
Thank you for being the voice of reason. Too many ham radio RUclips channels have become like unskilled media....using FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, and DOUBT (FUD) to get clicks to watch their VERY irresponsible fatalistic, albeit ignorant, content.
If you give them a little now they will want more later
so does this mean their proposal will fail?
Can the FCC even make a decision about that? A novel use of HF bands affects the whole world. Looks like something that requires international coordination.
Uh, hence the name, "high-frequency trading".
You might want to read more into this. High frequency trading should be illegal in the first place. So they people behind this are criminals they don't care about us or our frequencies. There is a lot money behind this and that never goes well. Read the AARL response about the amount of creep on our bands and the spurious emissions
This is a problem and i wonder what daves price was!
High frequency trading should be illegal. Computer algorithms trading should be illegal. Computers can trade so fast that it is pure market manipulation.
I wish I hadn't sent my comment before watching this! 🙄
To be real, the FCC will want the money, as they say money talks and 🐂💩walks.
You make a good point. The $35 licensing fee we pay is peanuts compared to how much is made by the FCC and others on spectrum auctions.
@@craigm7513 That is true, the last time I got my license it was still free, at the comments time for the $35 charge I protested because a young person may not get into the hobby because of the charge, but I knew it was necessary to start paying employees to process paperwork. I'm not sure how much the FCC will earn from these corporations, but as you said, it won't be peanuts.73's🎙KD9OAM
"Let's All Freak Out Over RM-11953, Shall We?"
There is no WE. Freak out, or not, as you please. I suspect it will become an annoyance that one has to live with, like the Russian Woodpecker. I also suspect it won't be as useful as claimed for its claimed purpose, which suggests it isn't about stock trading but a way to change the FCC rules for a purpose not obvious at present.
World will be much better place if the minimum financial investment period would be at least 24h. Or better one month. Now we reached the point when company profit gain is easier via stock market than invest in innovations and new products.
I s this the same guy who said the dx commander was crap, I know who I would rather listen too and the latest video from that said gentleman and I mean gentleman makes you look like a fool .
Very well balanced... Thank You :-)
Thanks for your approach to this Dave. You, Josh from HRCC and Erick from Ham Radio Concepts have a logical approach to the subject. It’s nice to not have another tuber making doom and gloom video for views.
Do not be naive, when Ukranians and Saudis are involved. 100% about $$$.
To benefit the 1%? More like the one-TENTH of 1%. Or the one-one-HUNDREDTH of 1%. Public benefit my behind…
If you own securities through a fund, or receive a pension or annuity based on such a fund, you benefit directly or indirectly from the market efficiency that HFT facilitates.
@@thomasdial8664: Hmm… good point. I hereby retract my comment.
The biggest problem with this commentary is that you don't drink coffee.lol😅
Dave, I am running 7/8 inch heliax 155 feet from my house to my tower. Do I ground the sheilds at both ends or just one? I've heard pros and cons for either way. I use Times Microwave ground kits on all my coax feeds. Thank you.