[Mark]

On Aug 28, 2:36*am, ¤R¼..-¦°€•*¦*b€rt°• ~¤..-¦-•¦-y¤€-•~¤¤¦*@le•
€s.com wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:54:26 GMT, Martin *Harrington
schreef:

Only if you buy from an Australian retailer, and buy new.

Martin H

That's what i thought. The good thing of user to user is that these
rules ( like ROHS ) are not relevant.

R

crossposting to rec.audio.pro

[Mark]

crossposting to rec.audio.pro

Aug 25, 2008 3:14 PM


The FCC has voted unanimously to ban the use of wireless microphones
and other devices in the 700MHz band after the transition to digital
television Feb. 17. Also included in the FCC order is equipment for
cue and control communications and that synchronizes TV camera
signals.


The FCC also wants to prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or
shipment of devices that operate as low-power auxiliary stations in
the 700MHz band after the transition is complete. Anticipating the
decision, wireless microphone vendors like Shure have not
manufactured
such mics since the end of 2007.


Wireless microphones have long been sharing the spectrum with
broadcasters on Channels 52 through 69. Those channels, however, are
being reclaimed for advanced wireless uses by industry players and
first-responders after the transition to DTV.


Responding to consumer groups, the FCC Enforcement Bureau has opened
an investigation into how manufacturers market wireless microphones
to
users.


The Public Interest Spectrum Coalition alleged in a complaint last
month that users of wireless microphones, including Broadway stage
shows and large churches, are unwittingly violating FCC rules that
require licenses for the devices. The group accused wireless
manufacturers of deceptive advertising in how they market and sell
the
microphones, which largely operate in the same radio spectrum as
broadcast TV stations.


Most wireless microphone owners are unaware that FCC rules require
them to obtain a license. Wireless microphones that operate in the
same frequency bands as broadcast TV stations are intended for use in
the production of TV or cable programming or the motion picture
industry, according to FCC rules.


The FCC rarely enforces the licensing requirements on the microphones
because there have been so few complaints; the microphones are
programmed to avoid TV channels. However, transition to digital
broadcasting has forced the FCC to act.


It’s not known how many wireless microphones are in operation, but
Harold Feld, an attorney for the Media Access Project, said the total
is likely more than 1 million. “These are the favored frequencies
because they can be run at lower power and can be used for very high-
quality audio,” Feld told the Associated Press.


The wireless microphone issue stems from the FCC’s consideration of
using the spectrum between TV channels for transmitting wireless
broadband signals. Consumer groups and some of the nation’s largest
technology companies say these “white spaces” represent enormous
potential to make broadband more accessible.


Wireless microphone users and manufacturers have objected to the FCC
over future white space devices because of fears of interference,
even
though many of them haven’t been granted government licenses for the
microphones they’re using.

[John B[_2_]]

On 28/08/2008 Mark wrote:



crossposting to rec.audio.pro

Aug 25, 2008 3:14 PM


The FCC has voted unanimously to ban the use of wireless microphones
and other devices in the 700MHz band after the transition to digital
television Feb. 17. Also included in the FCC order is equipment for
cue and control communications and that synchronizes TV camera
signals.


..
long post snipped
..

But this isn't new information. The first document was released in
January 2002!

http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/44/...s/fc010364.pdf

--
John B

[Richard Crowley]

"John B" wrote ...
But this isn't new information.

This is the first time the FCC has explicitly banned wireless
microphones in any part of the spectrum.

The first document was released in January 2002!
http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/44/...s/fc010364.pdf

Paragraph 33 in the cited document says...
"Finally, SBE asks us to also afford continued secondary status to
Part 74 low power broadcast auxiliary devices (such as wireless
microphones) operating in the Lower 700 MHz Band, and to
establish a new service in Part 95 of our Rules to accommodate
their use. We reject these proposals as being outside the scope
of this proceeding. We conclude that the type of comprehensive
evaluation of these devices that SBE proposes is not served in
this proceeding, where the Commission has neither solicited nor
developed a record on this issue. We further note that, insofar
that the Lower 700 MHz Band will host extensive broadcast use
throughout the DTV transition, it is unlikely that new licensees will
rapidly occupy the band to the extent that users of the low power
broadcast auxiliary devices of the type SBE discusses will have to
immediately cease all operation."

Which apparently is bureaucratic lawyerspeak for....
"I can't think about that right now. If I do, I'll go crazy. I'll think
about that tomorrow." (Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With the Wind)

They didn't want to deal with wireless mics 6 years ago, and they
still don't. If it isn't part of a billion-dollar frequency auction, it
apparently doesn't exist.

Rather candid of them to say: "...the Commission has neither solicited
nor developed a record on this issue' That appears to be their
perpetual policy on the matter.

[Getting Older and Grumpier Gear Minion]

On Aug 29, 11:09*am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"John B" wrote ...

But this isn't new information.

This is the first time the FCC has explicitly banned wireless
microphones in any part of the spectrum.

The first document was released in January 2002!
http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/44/...s/fc010364.pdf

Paragraph 33 in the cited document says...
"Finally, SBE asks us to also afford continued secondary status to
Part 74 low power broadcast auxiliary devices (such as wireless
microphones) operating in the Lower 700 MHz Band, and to
establish a new service in Part 95 of our Rules to accommodate
their use. *We reject these proposals as being outside the scope
of this proceeding. We conclude that the type of comprehensive
evaluation of these devices that SBE proposes is not served in
this proceeding, where the Commission has neither solicited nor
developed a record on this issue. *We further note that, insofar
that the Lower 700 MHz Band will host extensive broadcast use
throughout the DTV transition, it is unlikely that new licensees will
rapidly occupy the band to the extent that users of the low power
broadcast auxiliary devices of the type SBE discusses will have to
immediately cease all operation."

Which apparently is bureaucratic lawyerspeak for....
"I can't think about that right now. If I do, I'll go crazy. I'll think
about that tomorrow." *(Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With the Wind)

They didn't want to deal with wireless mics 6 years ago, and they
still don't. If it isn't part of a billion-dollar frequency auction, it
apparently doesn't exist.

Rather candid of them to say: "...the Commission has neither solicited
nor developed a record on this issue' *That appears to be their
perpetual policy on the matter.

When the footbal field officials, the basketball referee's, and the
baseball
umpires all require wired microphones to have the crowd and television
audience hear their decisions, perhaps then we will see some action
happen
regarding wireless microphones. JM2CW

[rraudio]

That's all we need, another gov. sub-dept. with more yahoos running
around with scanners and guns. FPs' as they will come to be known.

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 29/08/08 19:53, in article
, "rraudio"
wrote:

That's all we need, another gov. sub-dept. with more yahoos running
around with scanners and guns. FPs' as they will come to be known.

"They do not like to be called ³radio cops.² They insist on ³frequency
coordinators.²"
http://www.networkworld.com/news/200...adio-cops.html


--
Joe Kotroczo

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"John B" wrote ...
But this isn't new information.

This is the first time the FCC has explicitly banned wireless
microphones in any part of the spectrum.

Maybe, but it's certainly not the first time or place they have been
banned. For example, aircraft navigation bands are not legal places
to operate wireless microphones.

When broadcast bands CEASE to be broadcast bands, and this has happened
several times over the past 20 years, starting with the loss of channels
70-83 and going down.... broadcast auxiliary services no longer have the
rights to use them.

They didn't want to deal with wireless mics 6 years ago, and they
still don't. If it isn't part of a billion-dollar frequency auction, it
apparently doesn't exist.

If you didn't pay for the license, you have no right to complain. The
problem is the huge number of unlicensed wireless microphone users out
there. They are invisible to the FCC, because they didn't file the
paperwork, and nobody at the FCC had any clue there were so many out there
because they aren't on the books.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2008-08-29 (ScottDorsey) said:
They didn't want to deal with wireless mics 6 years ago, and they
still don't. If it isn't part of a billion-dollar frequency
auction, it apparently doesn't exist.
If you didn't pay for the license, you have no right to complain.
The problem is the huge number of unlicensed wireless microphone
users out there. They are invisible to the FCC, because they
didn't file the paperwork, and nobody at the FCC had any clue there
were so many out there because they aren't on the books.
YEp, the invisible men and women. STill, I must wonder if
today's fcc would have noticed or cared even had wireless
mic users paid for the licenses as they should have. AFter
all, public convenience and necessity isn't actually the
watchword around there these days.





Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
If you didn't pay for the license, you have no right to complain. The
problem is the huge number of unlicensed wireless microphone users out
there. They are invisible to the FCC, because they didn't file the
paperwork, and nobody at the FCC had any clue there were so many out there
because they aren't on the books.

You keep saying that. But show us ANY evidence that the FCC
even thinks about (much less takes any action) supporting the
LICENSED wireless mic users. I can't see that having a license
gets you anything but a scrap of paper and a feeling of compliance.
Did they set asside some bandwidth for licensed wireless mic users
that we all missed somewhere along the line? The guys over on
r.a.m.p.s would love to hear about this.

[Richard Crowley]

Richard Webb wrote ...
(ScottDorsey) said:
They didn't want to deal with wireless mics 6 years ago, and they
still don't. If it isn't part of a billion-dollar frequency
auction, it apparently doesn't exist.
If you didn't pay for the license, you have no right to complain.
The problem is the huge number of unlicensed wireless microphone
users out there. They are invisible to the FCC, because they
didn't file the paperwork, and nobody at the FCC had any clue there
were so many out there because they aren't on the books.

YEp, the invisible men and women. STill, I must wonder if
today's fcc would have noticed or cared even had wireless
mic users paid for the licenses as they should have. AFter
all, public convenience and necessity isn't actually the
watchword around there these days.

FCC appears to show exactly the same indifference (if not hostility)
to the *licensed* users. If I had bought a license, I'd be even MORE
****ed at being left out in the cold.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
On 2008-08-29 (ScottDorsey) said:
They didn't want to deal with wireless mics 6 years ago, and they
still don't. If it isn't part of a billion-dollar frequency
auction, it apparently doesn't exist.
If you didn't pay for the license, you have no right to complain.
The problem is the huge number of unlicensed wireless microphone
users out there. They are invisible to the FCC, because they
didn't file the paperwork, and nobody at the FCC had any clue there
were so many out there because they aren't on the books.

YEp, the invisible men and women. STill, I must wonder if
today's fcc would have noticed or cared even had wireless
mic users paid for the licenses as they should have. AFter
all, public convenience and necessity isn't actually the
watchword around there these days.

The FCC in the Era After President Carter is primarily interested in
revenue, not the public good. And wireless microphone users would
actually be a pretty good source of revenue. If, of course, they
actually paid their licensing fees. And there is the rub.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
If you didn't pay for the license, you have no right to complain. The
problem is the huge number of unlicensed wireless microphone users out
there. They are invisible to the FCC, because they didn't file the
paperwork, and nobody at the FCC had any clue there were so many out there
because they aren't on the books.

You keep saying that. But show us ANY evidence that the FCC
even thinks about (much less takes any action) supporting the
LICENSED wireless mic users. I can't see that having a license
gets you anything but a scrap of paper and a feeling of compliance.
Did they set asside some bandwidth for licensed wireless mic users
that we all missed somewhere along the line? The guys over on
r.a.m.p.s would love to hear about this.

They did set aside some bandwidth for licensed wireless users, in the
TV band. You're using it.

Since there are so few licensed users, and since the primary users of
the band are going away, the FCC felt that the total impact will be
minimal. From the FCC's perspective, making these changes was going to
affect fewer than a hundred licensees across the country using the
broadcast auxiliary service for wireless. They gave those users seven
years of warning that the band was going away, in a world where seven
years is expected to be the reasonable lifetime of a piece of equipment.
Seven years of warning people not to purchase new equipment for the
channels that are going away.

So, from the FCC's perspective, we had around a hundred people with
licenses, we gave them seven years of warning that they would have to
move to alternate frequencies, using equipment that has a lifespan
expected to be lower than that. So why should there be ANY left?

Back in the 1960s, you could use the 26 MHz channels for FM wireless.
That allocation went away years and years ago. I still have an old
Vega wireless set somewhere that uses that band. Should I feel upset
that they have made my hardware unusable?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote...
They did set aside some bandwidth for licensed wireless users, in the
TV band. You're using it.

So, from the FCC's perspective, we had around a hundred people with
licenses, we gave them seven years of warning that they would have to
move to alternate frequencies, using equipment that has a lifespan
expected to be lower than that. So why should there be ANY left?

Back in the 1960s, you could use the 26 MHz channels for FM wireless.
That allocation went away years and years ago. I still have an old
Vega wireless set somewhere that uses that band. Should I feel upset
that they have made my hardware unusable?

So you do you seriously expect us to believe that nobody at
the FCC thought there were more than ~100 users of wireless
mics in the USA? Is this the same FCC who goes after garage
shops that sell illegal 1KW CB transmitters, and even goes after
Behringer for Part 15 violations, but DOESN'T NOTICE that
10s of thousands of wireless mics are openly advertised and sold
and used in the US every year?

You also didn't answer the question about what the FCC is doing
for the *licensed users*? But then this is the political season again :-)

[[email protected]]

Excuse me, but I didn't get years of warning that use of my wirelesses
in bands above 700MHz would be expressly illegal. Our interp our our
use of the airwaves is under Part 74, and the FCC has known about the
millions of wireless (and walkie talkie and etc) users and the people
making that gear for the whole while. Under part 74 we could use TV
bands as long as we didn't interfere with other licensed users (TV
stations and viewers) and accepted any interference in our use w/o
complaint or action. Now we are being told that we cannot legally use
the spectrum above 700MHz REGARDLESS of whether it is in use by a new
license holder or not. This is a ruling that invites flouting, and
flouted it will be until the new users of that space blow the wireless
mics off the air. Somehow that seems like how wireless mic usage of
any band ("white space" or no) will end--in an era of shrinking
government agency budgets do we really think that the FCC will be
driving around busting churches, video shoots, rock bands etc.?

I DID try to license my very first wireless mics in the early 1980s.
To say I was "blown off" by the guy on the phone at the FCC would be
putting it too politely. He basically told me that as an individual
person, ie not a media company--specifically a TV station etc., I
really wasn't eligible to have a license to operate my wirelesses in
any case and shouldn't be using them. Yes SIR!

Philip Perkins

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley wrote:
So you do you seriously expect us to believe that nobody at
the FCC thought there were more than ~100 users of wireless
mics in the USA?

Yes. If you do not fill out the license and pay the fee, you are invisible.
The folks running the FCC are not technical people any longer. They have
no clue what people do or what they don't do and they don't care anyway.
They don't view spectrum as anything other than a revenue source. If the
license database shows N users, from their standpoint there are N users.

Is this the same FCC who goes after garage
shops that sell illegal 1KW CB transmitters, and even goes after
Behringer for Part 15 violations, but DOESN'T NOTICE that
10s of thousands of wireless mics are openly advertised and sold
and used in the US every year?

Sadly the FCC goes after very few vendors of illegal CB transmitters,
certainly not the shop on Rt. 95 in Richmond with the big sign saying
to "Stop By When You're Ready for a Big Radio." And for every Behringer,
there are thousands of companies importing equipment without proper Part 15
certification (much of which could never actually meet Part 15 requirements).
The FCC's enforcement division is basically gutted, and what is left is
basically only used for things which will bring reasonable PR to the agency
because they don't have the time for anything else. Most of the technical
enforcement folks have been laid off in the past decade.

You also didn't answer the question about what the FCC is doing
for the *licensed users*? But then this is the political season again :-)

What they are doing is giving them SEVEN YEARS of warning that the band
is going away. In a field where the average lifespan of equipment is
less than seven years, giving seven years notice means that with reasonable
upgrade cycles nobody informed will actually be affected.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Brent Lestage]

Agencies such as the FCC, FAA, FDA, EPA, etc. are "regulating
agencies." Specifically, the FCC was created to regulate the airwaves
by providing and upholding North American broadcast standards. Extreme
measures were taken to de-regulate many of these regulating agencies
by our so-called "great" republican actor-president Ronald Reagan and
republican presidents since. They believed that private enterprise
should operate without governmental interference. So, these agencies
have now effectively become agents to big business -- enablers. We
fund them, politicians and lobbyists control them and they provide
next to nothing for us.

Big business has been awarded control of our airwaves by the federal
government and has been given carte blanche by the FCC to grow into
monopolies and do as they please. Like it or not, we sound
professionals (licensed or not) are viewed as mere consumers --
whether buying electronics, traveling in airplanes, buying food or
drinking our precious ground water.

This move by the FCC to ignore a very large segment of wireless users
and to make the use of their wireless devices ILLEGAL is appalling.
Don't kid yourself -- the FCC has known about the sale of millions of
these devices, stood by and ALLOWED it because they are a lame duck
agency whose sole purpose now is to enable private enterprise to rule
the world.
--
B

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
You also didn't answer the question about what the FCC is doing
for the *licensed users*? But then this is the political season again :-)

What they are doing is giving them SEVEN YEARS of warning that the
band is going away. In a field where the average lifespan of equipment is
less than seven years, giving seven years notice means that with
reasonable
upgrade cycles nobody informed will actually be affected.

So then you are saying the the FCC doesn't think ANYONE (licensed
or not) should be using wireless microphones after Feb-09. It appears
that it is not just the enforcement division has been gutted.

[Richard Crowley]

Philip Perkins wrote ...
I DID try to license my very first wireless mics in the early 1980s.
To say I was "blown off" by the guy on the phone at the FCC would be
putting it too politely. He basically told me that as an individual
person, ie not a media company--specifically a TV station etc., I
really wasn't eligible to have a license to operate my wirelesses in
any case and shouldn't be using them. Yes SIR!

It appears that the FCC has maintained a "don't ask, don't care"
policy for wireless microphones since they first came on the scene.

[Richard Crowley]

"Brent Lestage" wrote in ...
Agencies such as the FCC, FAA, FDA, EPA, etc. are "regulating
agencies." Specifically, the FCC was created to regulate the airwaves
by providing and upholding North American broadcast standards. Extreme
measures were taken to de-regulate many of these regulating agencies
by our so-called "great" republican actor-president Ronald Reagan and
republican presidents since.

Ho hum. More tired liberal rhetoric. The FCC's "don't ask, don't care"
wireless mic policy was firmly in place decades before that.

[Brent Lestage]

On Aug 29, 9:27*pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:

Ho hum. More tired liberal rhetoric. The FCC's "don't ask, don't care"
wireless mic policy was firmly in place decades before that.

I got your liberal rhetoric right here [pointing at crotch].
Congratulations on your decades-old FCC "I could give a crap" wireless
mic policy observance. Look at where that fine policy has gotten us
us? Who/what are you defending? You ARE a sound professional, aren't
you Richard?

[Gtrew]

On Aug 29, 8:18 pm, Brent Lestage wrote:

This move by the FCC to ignore a very large segment of wireless users
and to make the use of their wireless devices ILLEGAL is appalling.
Don't kid yourself -- the FCC has known about the sale of millions of
these devices, stood by and ALLOWED it because they are a lame duck
agency whose sole purpose now is to enable private enterprise to rule
the world.
--
B

The problem for wireless mic users is that we are actually an
extremely small minority of those who stand to benefit from that
frequency band. It is hard to make a serious case for so few to hold
up so many others. If I was not biased as a wireless mic user (which,
of course, I am), I would have to think that the FCC did what the FCC
is there for.

Regarding wireless mic licenses for the band in question, I seem to
recall that there was no protection of those frequencies for wireless
mic users, but was more of a registration of a the transmitter. Larry,
is this close?

Glen Trew

[Richard Crowley]

"Brent Lestage" wrote ...
Congratulations on your decades-old FCC "I could give a crap"
wireless mic policy observance.

You talkin to me? Its not "my" FCC. Nor my policy.
I'm in the same sinking boat with everyone else here.
You're the one who made a pathetic attempt to make it
some sort of political case. Lets stick to the technical
issues and leave the politics to some other forum, shall we?

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gtrew wrote:

The problem for wireless mic users is that we are actually an
extremely small minority of those who stand to benefit from that
frequency band. It is hard to make a serious case for so few to hold
up so many others. If I was not biased as a wireless mic user (which,
of course, I am), I would have to think that the FCC did what the FCC
is there for.

That is a very strange way of counting. I would have thougth the users of
the wireless mics should be counted by counting sold theather and concert
tickets.

Glen Trew

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Charles Tomaras]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...


That is a very strange way of counting. I would have thougth the users of
the wireless mics should be counted by counting sold theather and concert
tickets.

Glen Trew

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

The silver lining may be that actors will have to start projecting their
voices again!

[Martin Harrington]

It's all well and good to play devils advocate Scott, but all the FCC or
their minions had to do was look at radio mic sales to get a "rough" idea of
how many users there was out there.... It's not rocket science, just "bloody
mindedness".

Martin H


On 30/08/08 7:10 AM, in article , "Scott Dorsey"
wrote:

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
If you didn't pay for the license, you have no right to complain. The
problem is the huge number of unlicensed wireless microphone users out
there. They are invisible to the FCC, because they didn't file the
paperwork, and nobody at the FCC had any clue there were so many out there
because they aren't on the books.

You keep saying that. But show us ANY evidence that the FCC
even thinks about (much less takes any action) supporting the
LICENSED wireless mic users. I can't see that having a license
gets you anything but a scrap of paper and a feeling of compliance.
Did they set asside some bandwidth for licensed wireless mic users
that we all missed somewhere along the line? The guys over on
r.a.m.p.s would love to hear about this.

They did set aside some bandwidth for licensed wireless users, in the
TV band. You're using it.

Since there are so few licensed users, and since the primary users of
the band are going away, the FCC felt that the total impact will be
minimal. From the FCC's perspective, making these changes was going to
affect fewer than a hundred licensees across the country using the
broadcast auxiliary service for wireless. They gave those users seven
years of warning that the band was going away, in a world where seven
years is expected to be the reasonable lifetime of a piece of equipment.
Seven years of warning people not to purchase new equipment for the
channels that are going away.

So, from the FCC's perspective, we had around a hundred people with
licenses, we gave them seven years of warning that they would have to
move to alternate frequencies, using equipment that has a lifespan
expected to be lower than that. So why should there be ANY left?

Back in the 1960s, you could use the 26 MHz channels for FM wireless.
That allocation went away years and years ago. I still have an old
Vega wireless set somewhere that uses that band. Should I feel upset
that they have made my hardware unusable?
--scott

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Yes. If you do not fill out the license and pay the fee, you are invisible.
The folks running the FCC are not technical people any longer. They have
no clue what people do or what they don't do and they don't care anyway.
They don't view spectrum as anything other than a revenue source. If the
license database shows N users, from their standpoint there are N users.

Oh, I think that at least unofficially, it must be better than this.
However, it may be the FCC's way of saying "We told you so." That's an
FCC-like tactic. But their idea isn't to get more people to get
licenses, it's to make the spectrum available to the highest bidders,
and that's not going to be small time musicians or even large sound
companies. But maybe a few of the Vegas mobs who feel that the sound in
their show clubs is threatened can adjust a few kneecaps.




--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Brent Lestage]

On Aug 30, 12:07*am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:

You talkin to me? *Its not "my" FCC. Nor my policy.
I'm in the same sinking boat with everyone else here.
You're the one who made a pathetic attempt to make it
some sort of political case. *Lets stick to the technical
issues and leave the politics to some other forum, shall we?

If you're in the same sinking boat, then why keep letting more bilge
water in? Sorry to bring politics to the table, but sometimes it's
hard not to when you see the world around you falling to ****. I do,
however, agree with you Richard (by the way, nice DeNiro comeback)
that this is a technical forum and I have taken this subject way off
topic. My apologies to Darrell who begin this thread.
--
B

[George's ProSound Company]

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message
...

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...


That is a very strange way of counting. I would have thougth the users of
the wireless mics should be counted by counting sold theather and concert
tickets.

Glen Trew

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

The silver lining may be that actors will have to start projecting their
voices again!

doubtful, it just means as a Sound provider, another 20,000$ "upgrade" to
outfit 8 decent systems
george

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
You also didn't answer the question about what the FCC is doing
for the *licensed users*? But then this is the political season again :-)

What they are doing is giving them SEVEN YEARS of warning that the
band is going away. In a field where the average lifespan of equipment is
less than seven years, giving seven years notice means that with
reasonable
upgrade cycles nobody informed will actually be affected.

So then you are saying the the FCC doesn't think ANYONE (licensed
or not) should be using wireless microphones after Feb-09. It appears
that it is not just the enforcement division has been gutted.

Not on those bands. On the remaining TV channels, on specifically licensed
land-mobile channels, and on the broadcast auxiliary channels you can still
use wireless, yes.

The Sennheiser website has, for the past five or six years, shown a nice
outline of what frequencies were going away when and where folks were
going to have to relocate to. That's a good bit of notice.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Gtrew wrote:

Regarding wireless mic licenses for the band in question, I seem to
recall that there was no protection of those frequencies for wireless
mic users, but was more of a registration of a the transmitter. Larry,
is this close?

This is true, yes.

Wireless users are secondary allocations on the TV broadcast bands, and
have to accept interference from the primary users, while not causing
any interference to the primary users. This was easier when there were
a lot of unused TV channels than it will be in the future.

The TV stations are the primary users, and the channel allocations have
been altered because the new television format allows adjacent channels
in the same city to be used, so we can shoehorn more stations into less
bandwidth. Wireless users are just secondary.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley wrote:

You talkin to me? Its not "my" FCC. Nor my policy.
I'm in the same sinking boat with everyone else here.
You're the one who made a pathetic attempt to make it
some sort of political case. Lets stick to the technical
issues and leave the politics to some other forum, shall we?

But, for the most part, it _is_ a political case. That's part of why
it's become so contentious.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Martin Harrington wrote:
It's all well and good to play devils advocate Scott, but all the FCC or
their minions had to do was look at radio mic sales to get a "rough" idea of
how many users there was out there.... It's not rocket science, just "bloody
mindedness".

This DID happen.... but it happened too late and the FCC was totally
blindsided by the number of folks yelling when the new channel
allocations came out. The problem is that by the time the folks started
yelling, it was far too late for anything to be changed. The wheels
of government do grind exceeding slow.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Still not buying the argument for a special rule saying that
specifically wireless mic usage above 700MHz is expressly illegal. If
the reasoning is that the users are unlicensed, then all wireless mic
usage w/o a license should be ruled expressly illegal. If the
reasoning is that somehow that wireless mics will interfere in that
band, tell me how that situation will be worse than that in the old TV
bands?
Why is this specific rule needed? I think it is just a form of
spectrum ethnic-cleansing in which the big tech companies slap
everyone hard so they won't object so much to their next objective,
which is taking over all the remaining spectrum for services they can
charge for. This is their answer to the arguments that virtually
eliminating wireless mic use would severely damage a couple of other
industries. If this is the trend, then the next ruling will either
make use and sale of wireless illegal w/o a license at any frequency
(and good luck getting licensed, all you churches, garage bands and
ENG sound people), or
will specify a tiny sliver of spectrum to be shared by several sorts
of wireless users in which only the strong will survive, and even to
use this band will require buying all new wirelesses, AGAIN.

Philip Perkins

[Brent Lestage]

I'm with you Philip. The other grave concern for those of us who WILL
operate illegally until we are blown off the airwaves is travel in/out
of country. Will the TSA attempt to confiscate these now "illegal"
wireless devices?
--
B

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
Still not buying the argument for a special rule saying that
specifically wireless mic usage above 700MHz is expressly illegal.

You don't need a rule to make use of frequencies illegal, you need
a rule to make it _legal_. You can download the current bandplan
from the FCC website.

If
the reasoning is that the users are unlicensed, then all wireless mic
usage w/o a license should be ruled expressly illegal.

It is, yes. The FCC doesn't enforce it, but that doesn't make it legal
in any way. If you did not fill out the form and send in your $35, you
are operating illegally.

If the
reasoning is that somehow that wireless mics will interfere in that
band, tell me how that situation will be worse than that in the old TV
bands?

Because the channel utilization will be much higher. It used to be that
only half the TV channels in any city could be used by TV stations, because
there were adjacent channel interference issues. This is no longer the
case with ATV, so there are no longer any unused channels in some cities.
In other cities, there ARE unused channels, and you can still use them,
but they aren't the same channels that they were before the change to ATV.

The law says that auxiliary broadcast users can transmit on unused TV
channels. When there are no longer any unused TV channels, you will
not be able to transmit on them. The Sennheiser website will tell you
what channels will be open in your area after the change.

Why is this specific rule needed? I think it is just a form of
spectrum ethnic-cleansing in which the big tech companies slap
everyone hard so they won't object so much to their next objective,
which is taking over all the remaining spectrum for services they can
charge for.

Sorry, that happened during the Reagan administration. Where have you
been?

This is their answer to the arguments that virtually
eliminating wireless mic use would severely damage a couple of other
industries. If this is the trend, then the next ruling will either
make use and sale of wireless illegal w/o a license at any frequency
(and good luck getting licensed, all you churches, garage bands and
ENG sound people), or
will specify a tiny sliver of spectrum to be shared by several sorts
of wireless users in which only the strong will survive, and even to
use this band will require buying all new wirelesses, AGAIN.

You had seven years of warning to buy new wireless gear. Wasn't that
enough?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Charles Tomaras]

"Brent Lestage" wrote in message
...
I'm with you Philip. The other grave concern for those of us who WILL
operate illegally until we are blown off the airwaves is travel in/out
of country. Will the TSA attempt to confiscate these now "illegal"
wireless devices?
--
B

I find it hard to believe the TSA will have frequency scanners on hand nor
do I think they will be able to even understand the block numbers listed on
devices. Also, it seems to me that owning them or transporting them would
not be deemed illegal?

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 30/08/08 20:26, in article , "Charles
Tomaras" wrote:


"Brent Lestage" wrote in message
...
I'm with you Philip. The other grave concern for those of us who WILL
operate illegally until we are blown off the airwaves is travel in/out
of country. Will the TSA attempt to confiscate these now "illegal"
wireless devices?
--
B

I find it hard to believe the TSA will have frequency scanners on hand nor
do I think they will be able to even understand the block numbers listed on
devices. Also, it seems to me that owning them or transporting them would
not be deemed illegal?

TSA? Is that the entity that confiscates laptops, PDAs and cellphones at US
borders, without giving a reason or ever returning them? Or is that CBP?


--
Joe Kotroczo

[Philip Perkins]

On Aug 30, 10:21 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
wrote:
Still not buying the argument for a special rule saying that
specifically wireless mic usage above 700MHz is expressly illegal.

You don't need a rule to make use of frequencies illegal, you need
a rule to make it _legal_. You can download the current bandplan
from the FCC website.

If
the reasoning is that the users are unlicensed, then all wireless mic
usage w/o a license should be ruled expressly illegal.

It is, yes. The FCC doesn't enforce it, but that doesn't make it legal
in any way. If you did not fill out the form and send in your $35, you
are operating illegally.

If the
reasoning is that somehow that wireless mics will interfere in that
band, tell me how that situation will be worse than that in the old TV
bands?

Because the channel utilization will be much higher. It used to be that
only half the TV channels in any city could be used by TV stations, because
there were adjacent channel interference issues. This is no longer the
case with ATV, so there are no longer any unused channels in some cities.
In other cities, there ARE unused channels, and you can still use them,
but they aren't the same channels that they were before the change to ATV.

The law says that auxiliary broadcast users can transmit on unused TV
channels. When there are no longer any unused TV channels, you will
not be able to transmit on them. The Sennheiser website will tell you
what channels will be open in your area after the change.

Why is this specific rule needed? I think it is just a form of
spectrum ethnic-cleansing in which the big tech companies slap
everyone hard so they won't object so much to their next objective,
which is taking over all the remaining spectrum for services they can
charge for.

Sorry, that happened during the Reagan administration. Where have you
been?

This is their answer to the arguments that virtually
eliminating wireless mic use would severely damage a couple of other
industries. If this is the trend, then the next ruling will either
make use and sale of wireless illegal w/o a license at any frequency
(and good luck getting licensed, all you churches, garage bands and
ENG sound people), or
will specify a tiny sliver of spectrum to be shared by several sorts
of wireless users in which only the strong will survive, and even to
use this band will require buying all new wirelesses, AGAIN.

You had seven years of warning to buy new wireless gear. Wasn't that
enough?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

No, Scott, it was not enough. This whole argument that everyone
should have known the laws and that they need to download Sennheiser's
alloc chart (not, by the way, available during the Reagan admin) is
specious. It ignores what is actually going on in the lives of
American citizens and several industries that employ large numbers of
people TODAY, not a nebulous promise of some new services and
businesses that may or may not happen or employ Americans at all, as
well as several decades of willful ignorance by the FCC. If they
cared about the specific usage of the band then they should have
publicized their rulings and notified the manufacturers, the movie
producers, the sound companies etc. over the last 30 years. The cat's
out of the bag, and millions of wireless users could care less about
the FCC's ruling and will not comply. Meanwhile, there was NEVER any
notion or warning about making a specific band's use specifically
illegal. That ruling smacks of favoritism for a specific group--the
TV broadcasters never asked for such a ruling. I do not understand
why you have decided to align yourself with a group of people who
believe that its ok to run a lot of people's businesses over in
pursuit of new enterprises whose benefit to the public has not been
demonstrated at all. The real stupidity of the ruling, however, will
be seen in how widely it will be ignored. Maybe you should rent some
billboard space so you can tell the 99% of wireless users out there
who don't read these forums that they have no right to use their gear
and will be breaking the law if they do use it. Make sure to put your
email address on there too so you can repeat your same argument to
them.

Philip Perkins

[Scott Dorsey]

Philip Perkins wrote:
No, Scott, it was not enough. This whole argument that everyone
should have known the laws and that they need to download Sennheiser's
alloc chart (not, by the way, available during the Reagan admin) is
specious. It ignores what is actually going on in the lives of
American citizens and several industries that employ large numbers of
people TODAY, not a nebulous promise of some new services and
businesses that may or may not happen or employ Americans at all, as
well as several decades of willful ignorance by the FCC.

Have you been reading ANY of the technical press for the past seven years?
Everybody has had article after article about it until we have all been
completely sick of the subject.

If you don't know that big UHF chunks are going away, you have had your
head in the sand for a long, long time.

If they
cared about the specific usage of the band then they should have
publicized their rulings and notified the manufacturers, the movie
producers, the sound companies etc. over the last 30 years.

They DID. Where were you? Don't you read Millimeter, or Live Sound,
Mix or Recording?

It's not 30 years, though.... the current change was announced only
seven years ago.

In the past thirty years there HAVE been changes to allowable wireless
allocations, but they have mostly had to do with low band VHF stuff.


The cat's
out of the bag, and millions of wireless users could care less about
the FCC's ruling and will not comply. Meanwhile, there was NEVER any
notion or warning about making a specific band's use specifically
illegal.

Okay, let me explain this to you if you don't already get it: where
RF allocations are concerned, everything not specifically permitted
is not allowed.

That is, you MUST have a license of some sort to transmit anywhere
EXCEPT in a couple ISM "freebands," on the citizens band, and on
bands at very low power as specifically authorized under part 15.
If you do not have a license and you are putting out enough power to
be received across the room, you either need to be in an ISM band
or you are operating illegally.

There are no exceptions to this. The FCC doesn't enforce it.... hell
there are touch lamps at Wal-Mart that spew broadband trash all over
the HF bands at higher levels that wireless microphones put out. But
it's not legal.

That ruling smacks of favoritism for a specific group--the
TV broadcasters never asked for such a ruling. I do not understand
why you have decided to align yourself with a group of people who
believe that its ok to run a lot of people's businesses over in
pursuit of new enterprises whose benefit to the public has not been
demonstrated at all.

I am not aligned with anyone. I am telling you what the law is. I
make no value judgement about whether it's a good law or a bad law,
but this is what the law is.

The allocations changed, and a whole hell of a lot of effort was put
into making sure everybody knew about the changed allocations. If
you have gone seven years without hearing about it, you cannot blame
the FCC for that.

The real stupidity of the ruling, however, will
be seen in how widely it will be ignored. Maybe you should rent some
billboard space so you can tell the 99% of wireless users out there
who don't read these forums that they have no right to use their gear
and will be breaking the law if they do use it. Make sure to put your
email address on there too so you can repeat your same argument to
them.

The problem is that when the frequencies get reallocated, they are going
to be reallocated to stations who will transmit on them. You might be
able to get away with using them in some places, but I would not want
to depend on them for reliable communication.

Some folks HAVE been testing existing wireless microphone systems on
occupied ATV channels, and it kind of works although the usable range
is reduced. Whether it is a minor or substantial reduction appears to
be still under debate.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."