Slashdot Mirror
Codec2 Project Asks FCC To Modernize Regulations
Bruce Perens writes "The Codec2 project has developed FreeDV, a program to encode digital voice on two-way radio in only 1.125 KHz of bandwidth. But FCC regulations aren't up-to-speed with the challenges of software-defined radio and Open Source. A 24 page FCC filing created by Bruce Perens proposes that FCC allow all digital modulations and published digital codes on ham radio and switch to bandwidth-based regulation."
For those interested in knowing what Codec2 is, there's a video from Linux Conference Australia 2012 which gives a pretty good (and gentle) overview.
http://mirror.linux.org.au/linux.conf.au/2012/Codec_2_Open_Source_Speech_Coding_at_2400_bits_and_Below.ogv
The regulations to move from 25 khz to 12.5 khz just took effect this year which forced many cash strapped agencies and municipalities to buy new radio systems. I don't think there will be much support for further narrowing bandwidth any time soon.
"Dear economically invisible 'ham radio' users;
After an exhaustive modernization study underwritten in part by our good friends at Verizon, we have concluded that the future of digital voice should really cost ~$100/month and rely entirely on proprietary hardware and firmware. To this end, we will be lowballing every last scrap of spectrum we can to the nation's incumbent telcos as soon as possible.
XOXOXO,
The FCC"
I applaud modernization efforts, there is no reason why 'ham radio' should be forced to stick to ancient technology for reasons of sheer regulatory inertia when it could be fertile ground for experimentation; but I worry that (given the, um, limited war chests of ham nerds vs. other spectrum users) that perfectly sensible re-examinations of legacy rules might well end up becoming an exercise in malignant entities with better lobbyists using the rexamination of legacy rules to appropriate spectrum that was protected at the cost of a certain amount of anachronism...
What is the SRTADCAS/REELN department?
The end goal of moving toward more spectrally-efficient digital modes for all forms of communication is laudable, but I think that there still needs to be some 'semi-official' protection for the traditional SSB phone modes while they're still in widespread use. Most robust digital modulation schemes are fairly immune to interference from adjacent SSB voice transmissions; unfortunately the converse is not true - my Mark I ears are not immune to nearby digital interference. As long as we still have band plans that encourage the separation of all digital modes from the analog modes, I fully support your proposal.
A question, though: How does spread-spectrum fit into your bandwidth-based plan? Do you consider the bandwidth to be what's used by each individual chip or the SS signal over all its carriers?
How do you feel about introducing a CDMA-esque automatic listen-before-transmit rule for computer-based digital modes, particularly with the growth of unattended stations?
PS - There's a typo in item 79 in the 20m, 6kHz section of the proposed bandwidth table - you have the lower limit as 1.150 MHz instead of 14.150 MHz.
73 de K4DET
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Blah blah blah I'm Bruce Perens and I'm so wonderful. I get such a kick out of submitting my own worthless shit to the front page.
The AC got modded down to oblivion for this comment, and given how it was written and how fast some mods pull the trigger, I'm not surprised.
However, you've got to admit that a Slashdot submission that reads "xxx writes: a 24-page FCC created by xxx proposes that..." make xxx appear insufferably conceited and self-obsessed, be xxx Bruce Perens or anybody else.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Bruce is merely lending his support with a comment. Also, the FCC wants to go that way because it makes the rules simpler. Also, we're already mostly there. Then again, who has actually read all of Part 97?
I'll use any digital codec I want, and the FCC can't do anything about it.
73s de MM0YEQ
And here is a recent demo of real world performance. Compared to SSB the encoded voice is more artificial sounding, but there is no background noise (hiss and clicks) and it uses less than half the bandwidth to transmit. There is more info and a large playlist of demo/tutorial videos on David Rowe's blog (the creator of codec2).
The question today that needs to be answered is what is Amateur radio for, and what is it for 10 years from now?
This isn't silly because a large portion of the "social" aspect of HAM radio has moved to the Internet. I don't see much of a movement to keep it alive, either. There is a very small community out there and it is shrinking.
It is true that historically the FCC HAM regulations were designed to keep operators from stepping on each other and from stepping on commercial and government users of the spectrum. What I suspect is most feared by today's HAM operators is the CB-ification of Amateur radio - elimination of licensing in favor of commercially regulated gear. While a lot of today's users would be OK with that, it would change the entire definition and purpose - which brings us back to the original question.
I don't see the FCC signing on to the Open Source Radio Support Act as proposed. Continuing to regulate by content type is silly and it may be silly to try to regulate by modulation type. It is a nice idea to say that transmissions have to universally decodable, but without a lot of standards and regulation to back them up this isn't going to be all that achievable - specifically reception of a bitstream without any definition is going to be pretty much inpenetratable. Just as today if I give you a binary file without any self-defining header and without identification like a file extension it could be pretty much anything and while it could be coded in a publically defined way without knowing which of thousands it could be renders it unreadable. This is similar to saying that an unknown compression scheme is the same as encryption.
I think today's HAM operators need to have a more compelling case why they are going to continue to exist. The home-brew gear of yesteryear is nearly gone and the "experimentation" envisioned with digitial communications might be nice to authorize but unlikely to ever produce anything of value. I would certainly like to see an openness dedicated to satellite communications, but again who is it for and what would it be used for?
The FCC has a keen understanding of the fact that amateur radio operators provide services that economically-motivated corporations cannot. When a hurricane, earthquake, or tornado takes out every cellular network within 100 miles of a populated area full of casualties requiring urgent delivery of specific life-sustaining resources, the monthly economics of routine day-to-day life are irrelevant. Implying that the FCC would dismiss amateur radio as irrelevant reveals a lack of understanding of the active and engaged relationship between the FCC and a large body of disaster responders - amateur radio operators. Additionally, as a lobbying power, the amateur radio community is widely respected and is the envy of many groups because of their organization, focus on key issues, and deep involvement in coordinating rulemaking and regulation. The amateur radio community's war chest is able to achieve more, from a governmental aspect, than most similar groups supporting different types of activities.
"from the SRTADCAS/REELN dept"? WTF is that?
C'mon Slashdot, if you're going to use Morse code in the dept line, at least look it up and make something witty. My how things have changed here.
In Canada any codec can be used in ham radio as long as the signal fits in the allocated bandwidth for the frequency and no encryption is used. The restriction is that you must publish the method before going on the air.
However, you've got to admit that a Slashdot submission that reads "xxx writes: a 24-page FCC created by xxx proposes that..." make xxx appear insufferably conceited and self-obsessed
Or maybe it was just written to read like a "news" article rather than a first-person livejournal (facebook? What are the kids using now?) post.
The current sub band system is not totally crazy. Even on the internet we recognise that different types of "data" have different needs for latency and quality. In order to carry on a voice conversation, you must keep the latency low. When sending a file for later reading, you can afford to wait or retry some packets...
Well, not sure if applicable but I just gotta post this (some years ago I copied this editorial from magazine, I typed up the content). So here you go with a blast from the past (and yet we hear this same argument since then).
Pending Radio Legislation
from the magazine Radio Age, July 1924
CONGRESS has adjourned without acting either way on pending radio legislation, according to the news dispatches from Washington.
Unless a special session is called, which does not seem likely at this time, radio will be untouched by legal attachments until next year, at least.
The two most important measures which were shelved by the adjournment of the well-meaning but unusually deliberative governmental bodies are the White Bill and the Dill Bill. The first proposes to establish governmental control over radio broadcasting, reception and perhaps the industry eventually. This bill, while not viciously attacked, did not go through because some representatives of the people wanted to know just why such a young and untried industry as radio should suffer the bonds of law so soon. Accordingly, it is unlikely that the White Bill will ever become a law -- so the fans may rest assured they will not be hindered for some time to come in that respect.
The Dill Bill is more far reaching in its scope. It is liberal and fair-minded. It asks that the copyright laws be amended so that copyrighted music can be broadcast without the payment of levies to the music publishers. Although this bill has been opposed at every step by huge organizations and moneyed interests, as well as several prominent music publishers, it was about to be passed with a fair majority when Congress adjourned.
There is still hope for the Dill Bill, then, and we hope that when it finally reaches the President's desk it will represent the result of a fair compromise between the broadcasters and the music publishers, in the interests of the fan who listens to broadcast music and helps the sale of the published article by buying the pieces he likes best.
Government legislation, we believe, appears to be the only means yet suggested which offers any kind of a solution to the bitter enmity between the broadcasters and the so-called music "trust."
Radio's recent jump to prominence in official circles such as Congress is only one indication of its growing importance. Big capital interests, legislators and public spirited citizens are realizing more and more that radio will some day control the destinies of our nation; and accordingly they are setting out to prevent its too sudden growth to an unwieldy influence. Quick government control, the legislators aver, will prevent radio from becoming a menace instead of the help and pleasure it should be.
In a measure these radio-legislators are right. Something must be done to prevent the air from becoming a bedlam of tangled wave lengths. Something must be done to prevent the ether from being clogged with propaganda and useless stuff that will discourage interest in the world's latest miracle.
If legislation works along those lines, it will be beneficial. But if it takes a political trend, this country will see a united uprising of righteously aroused fans -- lovers and promoters of the good in radio.
mfwright@batnet.com
However, you've got to admit that a Slashdot submission that reads "xxx writes: a 24-page FCC created by xxx proposes that..." make xxx appear insufferably conceited and self-obsessed, be xxx Bruce Perens or anybody else.
OR, he simply thought the we might have interest in it...and behold, we do! Some of us, at least.
Ezekiel 23:20
Hi Roscoe,
I want to have my opinions heard. And having notoriety helps. So I do not shy from self-promotion. But the point here is to get people interested in what I wrote, rather than just me.
It might be different if the purpose was just to sell my stuff. This is a non-profit activity.
Bruce Perens.
The FCC won't let us run spark-gap transmitters.
You need a decent-quality drill press. Without that, you'll be snapping bits like crazy and you'll have the drill bit walk to the wrong spot before it catches the material enough to dig in. Even with a drill press, you'll wear through the bits at an annoying rate.
You need to do something about parts falling out while you solder them. This is because they are upside-down, unless you hold the board over your head with solder dripping on your face.
You need lots more heat because you have lots more solder and bigger leads. You may burn the board or component.
Suggestion: if you are stuck using through-hole components, go with dead-bug construction. This means you place the components upside-down on an unetched board, using the board only as a ground plane. You make point-to-point connections with insulated wires.