• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

A New Use for Shortwave Frequencies

DavidEduardo

DavidEduardo

Moderator/Administrator
Staff member
Radio World reports today that "Market Makers" want to expand their use of shortwave.

"The Shortwave Modernization Coalition thinks the 2-25 MHz band is underused and wants to use it for the long-distance transmission of time-sensitive data from fixed stations. The users would be companies working with certain kinds of financial transactions; the proposal would prohibit voice transmission and mobile operations."
www.radioworld.com

“Market Makers” Want to Expand Their Use of Shortwave - Radio World

The FCC seeks comments on a proposal to use HF spectrum for financial data
www.radioworld.com www.radioworld.com
 
It's certainly a use for the spectrum - but a wise use? :unsure:

Yes, the issue is the 20mSec - 200mSec it takes for data to flow down an IP (wireless, cable, whatever...) is too slow for these "Market Makers" and they're thinking that this is going to fix it.

Think AT&T wireless relay circuits all over again.
 
What an incredibly dumb proposal.
Couple minor physics problems get in the way (okay three):
1. Even with digital modulation, the proposed band is so tiny that the bit rate per carrier would be in kilobits, as in 1200kps.
2. Because of the likelihood of atmospheric noise and heterodyne, one would need to resend bits (BER) repeatedly to make enough valid receivable packets. That increased decoded latency by an order of magnitude.
3. Because the proposal amounts to in the open, data can be easily blocked, modified, or spoofed.
 
kevtronics said:
Or maybe they're just looking for creative ways to keep the financial markets running in the event of a widespread natural disaster or cyberattack.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think so. This is about timing for traders using time-sensitive or, even "time critical" totally automated buy and sell operations.
 
I posted about this on the “DX and Reception” board already, including a link to the detailed proposal: https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/future-use-of-shortwave-spectrum.765179/

Market datacasting on shortwave is already being done by WINB. Several additional companies have applied with the FCC to transmit similar information. Tests have been conducted; would appear the involved parties are satisfied with the results, and have decided to proceed.

This has all to do with frontrunning the market, where a few milliseconds can provide an advantage.
 
kevtronics said:
Until the Cubans start jamming it.
Click to expand...
🤣 Lately the Cubans have not been able to keep most of their AM and FM stations on the air or at full power due to the horrible state of the power grid and the lack of petroleum based fuels for their generators.
 
DavidEduardo said:
🤣 Lately the Cubans have not been able to keep most of their AM and FM stations on the air or at full power due to the horrible state of the power grid and the lack of petroleum based fuels for their generators.
Click to expand...
and their SW stuff has sounded awful for .. welll decades... undermodulation with fuzzy audio.. no modulation at all....
 
Kelly A said:
What an incredibly dumb proposal.
Couple minor physics problems get in the way (okay three):
1. Even with digital modulation, the proposed band is so tiny that the bit rate per carrier would be in kilobits, as in 1200kps.
Click to expand...
For market messages that's enough. These protocols date back to the mainframe era in many cases.

Kelly A said:
2. Because of the likelihood of atmospheric noise and heterodyne, one would need to resend bits (BER) repeatedly to make enough valid receivable packets. That increased decoded latency by an order of magnitude.
3. Because the proposal amounts to in the open, data can be easily blocked, modified, or spoofed.
Click to expand...
#3 can be dealt with through encryption and digital signatures. That could add latency, but those operations are something you can throw compute power at to reduce that overhead significantly.

This is all about getting fractional advantage.
 
Mediafrog+ said:
This has all to do with frontrunning the market, where a few milliseconds can provide an advantage.
Click to expand...
Front-running is illegal. What these guys do is pay for order flow so that they can see the general direction of the market in a particular security at any given moment and try to anticipate the next price in order to gain a fractional margin of profit - and then to do so repeatedly. They are successful more often than not - but not always, thus there is still some risk of being caught on the wrong side of a trade and it doesn't constitute front-running as it is currently defined.

Those payments for order flow have enabled the major online brokerages to eliminate commissions on trades. This may have come at a different cost to individual investors, who may not be buying or selling securities at the best possible price at any given moment because someone else (the quants) has beaten them to it. In the future, that might be defined as front-running, but it isn't at the present time. This is an element of market plumbing that's controversial in certain quarters.
 
DavidEduardo said:
No, I don't think so. This is about timing for traders using time-sensitive or, even "time critical" totally automated buy and sell operations.
Click to expand...
There is no disaster recovery/business continuity purpose in such a proposal. Such a purpose is already well covered through other means, such as redundant communications, alternate data centers, etc. This is just about anticipating order flow.
 
The piece I'll admit I don't get, and perhaps someone smarter than me does, is that the data being transmitted over the shortwave signal still has to get TO the shortwave transmitter site somehow, and presumably that's via the same Internet with the same latency that the use of SW is trying to avoid.

What am I missing?
 
fybush said:
The piece I'll admit I don't get, and perhaps someone smarter than me does, is that the data being transmitted over the shortwave signal still has to get TO the shortwave transmitter site somehow, and presumably that's via the same Internet with the same latency that the use of SW is trying to avoid.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...
Put the shortwave transmitter as close as possible to the data center where the hedgies are doing their thing. Might even be able to hard-wire it. It does raise an interesting point: what kind of antennas are they using. Probably not gigantic curtain antennas requiring large tracts of land.
 
Mark Roberts said:
Put the shortwave transmitter as close as possible to the data center where the hedgies are doing their thing. Might even be able to hard-wire it.
Click to expand...
The proposed stations I’ve read about are in New Jersey, right across from Manhattan, and in Chicago, so very close to financial exchanges.
Mark Roberts said:
It does raise an interesting point: what kind of antennas are they using. Probably not gigantic curtain antennas requiring large tracts of land.
Click to expand...
From the proposals already made public it appears they will use yagi antennas, similar to what hams use for HF transmissions. One such proposed station in NJ, which wants to use the WIPE call, is planning to place a yagI antenna on the Armstrong tower above the Palisades.
 
Back
Top Bottom