[Mark]

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/

Mark

[Mike Rivers]

Mark wrote:
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/

Don't make me read the whole thing. Is it good news or bad news for the
audio community?

--
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
)

[David Grant]

Don't make me read the whole thing. Is it good news or bad news for the
audio community?

They're opening up new bands for use by unlicenced devices (similar to
2.4GHz and 5GHz). I think the bands are 3GHz and somewhere below 900MHz.

There is concern over wireless microphones interference. I don't know enough
technical details to say if the concern is founded. Supposedly wireless
microphones will be protected in the same way they've always been using a
registration database.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Mark wrote:
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/

Don't make me read the whole thing. Is it good news or bad news for the
audio community?

Nobody really knows, but for the most part it's probably pretty bad.
It certainly overturns most of the traditional spectrum management and
turns a whole lot of space into one big ISM band...
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

David Grant wrote:

They're opening up new bands for use by unlicenced devices (similar to
2.4GHz and 5GHz). I think the bands are 3GHz and somewhere below 900MHz.

There is concern over wireless microphones interference.

Nothing new there. I was hoping that the FCC had made an actual decision
as to who had what space and who needed to what with which and unto
whom. There are a number of "white space devices" proposed that are
basically supposed to do two things. First, to scan the spectrum, see
who's using what frequencies, and second, select an open frequency and
set up the system on that frequency. The only reports I've heard are
that at specific tests, they haven't worked well, either not fining
frequencies that were occupied or finding one that wasn't occupied. The
FCC was supposed to make a report to Congress.

Congress, on the other hand, could just slightly be under the influence
of lobbyists, and Microsoft, AT&T, Google, and Dell have more lobbying
money than anyone other than perhaps Disney in the entertainment
industry. So it may mean that the frequencies freed up by eliminating
half of the UHF TV band will just go to the wireless networks and the
wireless mic users won't have an opportunity to find white space in there.



--
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
)

[Mark]

ok lots of confusion here..

After Feb 17, 2009, above 700 MHz will no longer be used for TV and
will no longer be avaialbe for wireless mics.

After Feb 17, 2009, TV and wireless mics will be confined to below 700
MHz. The rules just released in the link (Mike, these are the RULES
now, not just reports or recomendations, thats why it is news-worthy)
allow unlicensed white spaces devices (and wireless mics) to be used
on most TV channels (below 700 MHz). There are several protection
mechanisms white space devices can use to protect TV stations and
wireless mics. Scanning and data base lookup are two.

exceprt from page 2...

=================
• Wireless microphones will be protected in a variety of ways. The
locations where wireless microphones are used, such as entertainment
venues and for sporting events, can be registered in the database and
will be protected as for other services. In addition, channels from 2
– 20 will be restricted to fixed devices, and we anticipate that many
of these channels will remain available for wireless microphones that
operate on an itinerant basis. In addition, in 13 major markets where
certain channels between 14 and 20 are used for land mobile
operations, we will leave 2 channels between 21 and 51 free of new
unlicensed devices and therefore available for wireless microphones.
Finally, as noted above, we have required that devices also include
the ability to listen to the airwaves to sense wireless microphones as
an additional measure of protection for these devices.
==================

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

Mark wrote:
ok lots of confusion here..

After Feb 17, 2009, above 700 MHz will no longer be used for TV and
will no longer be avaialbe for wireless mics.

This is expected and on-schedule. That's going to turn into a public service
band, so the chances that interference issues get actually enforced are pretty
good.

After Feb 17, 2009, TV and wireless mics will be confined to below 700
MHz. The rules just released in the link (Mike, these are the RULES
now, not just reports or recomendations, thats why it is news-worthy)
allow unlicensed white spaces devices (and wireless mics) to be used
on most TV channels (below 700 MHz). There are several protection
mechanisms white space devices can use to protect TV stations and
wireless mics. Scanning and data base lookup are two.

Unfortunately those protection mechanisms aren't very well thought-out.
The database scheme can work pretty well for TV stations, but only if the
database is kept up to date. Finding wireless mikes and other narrowband
sources by scanning is an interesting idea, and the law does require
the "white space" devices to stop periodically and make sure their space
isn't being used by someone else. However, actual testing of such devices
under these conditions was not very promising.

=95 Wireless microphones will be protected in a variety of ways. The
locations where wireless microphones are used, such as entertainment
venues and for sporting events, can be registered in the database and
will be protected as for other services. In addition, channels from 2
=96 20 will be restricted to fixed devices, and we anticipate that many
of these channels will remain available for wireless microphones that
operate on an itinerant basis.

Now THIS is the good part... the whole VHF band is protected, as well
as 6 TV channels worth of UHF. That's actually not too bad a concession
and it means there is still some pretty usable chunk of spectrum
available IF it is well-coordinated.

In addition, in 13 major markets where
certain channels between 14 and 20 are used for land mobile
operations, we will leave 2 channels between 21 and 51 free of new
unlicensed devices and therefore available for wireless microphones.

This is curious and I'm trying to figure out what was behind this.

Finally, as noted above, we have required that devices also include
the ability to listen to the airwaves to sense wireless microphones as
an additional measure of protection for these devices.

So far I have no evidence that such devices actually do operate properly.

And the WORST part of the whole thing is that it basically now makes
itinerant wireless system use without a license legal... and that is
how we got into this whole mess in the first place.

What does Google want this spectrum for anyway? Nobody has yet given
me a reasonable answer to that question.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 17 Nov 2008 19:47:44 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

What does Google want this spectrum for anyway? Nobody has yet given
me a reasonable answer to that question.

An NPR blip mentioned internet service. Too sketchy to say
much more. But it does seem likely.

Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
Now THIS is the good part... the whole VHF band is protected, as well
as 6 TV channels worth of UHF. That's actually not too bad a concession
and it means there is still some pretty usable chunk of spectrum
available IF it is well-coordinated.

Yes, but consider what "protected" means. Even if it means that you
have the legal right to operate, that is no practical protection against
somebody coming along and clobbering you. If you are in a fixed
operation you might eventually get the FCC to go after somebody who
was chronically interfering (after weeks or months of waiting, unable to
use your wireless mics).

But in transient operations (field film/video production, different-city-
each-night touring concerts, etc.) it is "protection" only in the
theoretical
sense. Nothing you can use as an explanation for a producer asking why
the wireless mics don't work.

And the WORST part of the whole thing is that it basically now makes
itinerant wireless system use without a license legal... and that is
how we got into this whole mess in the first place.

How would you propose that mobile operations be licensed where "mobile"
is frequently defined as an entire state or country, (or planet for that
matter).
There are lots of guys over on r.a.m.p.s who use their equipment in a
different
city or state every few weeks/months.

What does Google want this spectrum for anyway? Nobody has yet given
me a reasonable answer to that question.

They want to be able to send Google content (along with Google ads,
of course) to mobile devices (where "devices" is something more than
just a cell phone with a web browser).

[Chris Hornbeck]

An NPR blip mentioned internet service. Too sketchy to say
much more. But it does seem likely.

Oh yeah, they did actually discuss, surprisingly, the advantages
of the VHF band for mobile devices. Or maybe I just interpolated
that part. But it was at least strongly implied.

Not to complain! - it's still orders of magnitude beyond TV.



Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Scott Dorsey]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On 17 Nov 2008 19:47:44 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

What does Google want this spectrum for anyway? Nobody has yet given
me a reasonable answer to that question.

An NPR blip mentioned internet service. Too sketchy to say
much more. But it does seem likely.

I think they will very quickly discover how limited the bandwidth really
is, and how much bandwidth internet services take up. But they can try...
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
Now THIS is the good part... the whole VHF band is protected, as well
as 6 TV channels worth of UHF. That's actually not too bad a concession
and it means there is still some pretty usable chunk of spectrum
available IF it is well-coordinated.

Yes, but consider what "protected" means. Even if it means that you
have the legal right to operate, that is no practical protection against
somebody coming along and clobbering you. If you are in a fixed
operation you might eventually get the FCC to go after somebody who
was chronically interfering (after weeks or months of waiting, unable to
use your wireless mics).

Right, but that's the situation we're currently with the unlicensed
wireless mikes.

Incidentally, on a more careful read, it appears that only the low power
"personal" devices have this limitation and the higher power "fixed"
devices can use the VHF bands and the lower six UHF channels. That's bad.

But in transient operations (field film/video production, different-city-
each-night touring concerts, etc.) it is "protection" only in the
theoretical
sense. Nothing you can use as an explanation for a producer asking why
the wireless mics don't work.

Unfortunately, that's the situation we have now, and that is the result
of FCC mismanagement of the situation for the past 25 years. All I ask
for is that the current regulation not be a step backwards. And the
more I look at it, the more I think it is one.

And the WORST part of the whole thing is that it basically now makes
itinerant wireless system use without a license legal... and that is
how we got into this whole mess in the first place.

How would you propose that mobile operations be licensed where "mobile"
is frequently defined as an entire state or country, (or planet for that
matter).

There are a couple possibilities. Look at how land-mobile licenses are
handled. With a land-mobile license you can use the shared itinerant
channels, or you can pay more money for a dedicated channel all your own.
The licensing system allows you to buy a license for a small area or for
a large area, and various blocks in-between. You can get a license for
one state, or for the eastern seaboard, or for the whole country. Because
of the auction system for licenses, licenses for more desirable areas and
larger areas cost more.

There are lots of guys over on r.a.m.p.s who use their equipment in a
different
city or state every few weeks/months.

Yup.

What does Google want this spectrum for anyway? Nobody has yet given
me a reasonable answer to that question.

They want to be able to send Google content (along with Google ads,
of course) to mobile devices (where "devices" is something more than
just a cell phone with a web browser).

The thing is... by internet standards today, all of this stuff isn't
really very much bandwidth.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 17 Nov 2008 20:15:12 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

An NPR blip mentioned internet service. Too sketchy to say
much more. But it does seem likely.

I think they will very quickly discover how limited the bandwidth really
is, and how much bandwidth internet services take up. But they can try...

I've heard, from fabulously unreliable sources, including folks
from Comcast... both that their internet service is all carried
below channel 2 and above their talk-back (up to 12 MHz-ish...?)
and separately, and that it is on either one, or two, regular channel
spaces. IOW, nothing too believable.

But, fersure, it has to fit into the OneGigaHertzComcast cable,
along with all of their other programming. Maybe this is done
by dividing the internet parts into neighborhoods, and in ways
that couldn't work for VHF radio, or maybe not, or maybe sorta.

So maybe the Google internet model will be able to use Real RF
spectrum up for sale and a clever localization.

Dunno, but I'd bet strongly against any users without deep pockets.
Surprise, surprise.


Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Mark]

I've heard, from fabulously unreliable sources, including folks
from Comcast... *both that their internet service is all carried
below channel 2 and above their talk-back (up to 12 MHz-ish...?)
and separately, and that it is on either one, or two, regular channel
spaces. IOW, nothing too believable.


Internet over cable TV , i.e. cable modems, have nothing to do with
the white space devices. Cable modems are on cable and they can
use whatever frequency they like, the white space devices are over
the air and regulated by the FCC.

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Mark wrote:

I've heard, from fabulously unreliable sources, including folks
from Comcast... =A0both that their internet service is all carried
below channel 2 and above their talk-back (up to 12 MHz-ish...?)
and separately, and that it is on either one, or two, regular channel
spaces. IOW, nothing too believable.


Internet over cable TV , i.e. cable modems, have nothing to do with
the white space devices. Cable modems are on cable and they can
use whatever frequency they like, the white space devices are over
the air and regulated by the FCC.

The difference between the two is that the cable TV system isn't shared; it
is a closed network and everything on it is run by the cable TV company.
Broadcast bandwidth isn't like that, no matter how much some clueless
politicians might like it to be.

The new "white space devices" do appear to have a whole lot of available
bandwidth that they can use, and they are going to be allowed to use any
blocks of it that they wish as long as they follow a couple somewhat
oversimplified rules about periodically checking for other users. But
I think users will find that because it's an open system that a lot of that
bandwidth won't be usable.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

Mark wrote:

• Wireless microphones will be protected in a variety of ways. The
locations where wireless microphones are used, such as entertainment
venues and for sporting events, can be registered in the database and
will be protected as for other services. In addition, channels from 2
– 20 will be restricted to fixed devices, and we anticipate that many
of these channels will remain available for wireless microphones that
operate on an itinerant basis.

That sounds like a pretty good deal. I suspect that the major
entertainment venues like the Broadway theaters, stages like Staples
Center, and football stadiums will be pretty diligent about entering
their maximum requirements into the data base. The local church with one
or two wireless mics will not. But I guess that's their problem.

Hopefully the data base will be accessible and well maintained.

Finally, as noted above, we have required that devices also include
the ability to listen to the airwaves to sense wireless microphones as
an additional measure of protection for these devices.

This is what apparently nobody really has working very well yet. But I
don't keep too close touch with these things and my information comes in
about three months late (magazines). Maybe it's better now. Or maybe not.

--
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
)

[philper]

I'm glad that the FCC is concerned enough to be talking about this
issue, but what I'm hearing doesn't help me make any plans at all.
The TV Ch 2-14 isn't a help because currently no wireless units made
for professional use in the USA work on those freqs. The idea of the
registry could help theatres and churches possibly (if the technology
works and cheating on power levels of the white space devices isn't
allowed), but helps film/video etc users not at all. I don't
understand, yet, how the freq. sensing aspect of the individual white-
space device type phone etc would work in practice under real world
conditions. At this point I figure I'm going to be screwed by this
change somehow, so I'd like the rules to be set so we can see how
things are going to work and what the new technical challenges for
users will be more exactly, and sooner rather than later.

There was a comment earlier in this thread about heightened FCC
enforcement in the the above-700MHz bands after Feb 19. Does that
mean we'll have heightened enforcement all over the spectrum, or just
above 700MHz? What form will this enforcement take--should we expect
lots of roving FCC compliance vans on our streets after Feb 19?
Did the FCC get additional budget from congress to hire more
enforcement agents to do this work, since it will be in addition to
all the enforcement the FCC is already doing?

Philip Perkins

[[email protected]]

On 2008-11-18 (ScottDorsey) said:
I've heard, from fabulously unreliable sources, including folks
from Comcast... =A0both that their internet service is all
carried below channel 2 and above their talk-back (up to 12
snippage
The difference between the two is that the cable TV system isn't
shared; it is a closed network and everything on it is run by the
cable TV company. Broadcast bandwidth isn't like that, no matter
how much some clueless politicians might like it to be.
OF course, and the cable company's emissions are supposed to
*remain* within that closed system. sOme do better at this
than others g.

The new "white space devices" do appear to have a whole lot of
available bandwidth that they can use, and they are going to be
allowed to use any blocks of it that they wish as long as they
follow a couple somewhat oversimplified rules about periodically
checking for other users. But I think users will find that because
it's an open system that a lot of that bandwidth won't be usable.

tHe main reason these folks want it, google et al, is to
sell that bandwidth to the customer though. COnsider the
big wi fi hotspot using these freqs, "powered by google" and
you get the idea.
oops sorry baptist church, you weren't using it when we
scanned our freqs on the tuesday before we installed it.
THen there's the civic auditorium on the edge of the
footprint.






Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin, NOvember 1755 from the
Historical review of Pennsylvania



Google aids and abets spammers!!!

[David Grant]

That sounds like a pretty good deal. I suspect that the major
entertainment venues like the Broadway theaters, stages like Staples
Center, and football stadiums will be pretty diligent about entering their
maximum requirements into the data base. The local church with one or two
wireless mics will not. But I guess that's their problem.

So should I invest in companies that design or install faraday cages
(ignoring the probability that it's currently unwise to invest in anything
other than manufacturers of safes)?

[Scott Dorsey]

philper wrote:
I'm glad that the FCC is concerned enough to be talking about this
issue, but what I'm hearing doesn't help me make any plans at all.
The TV Ch 2-14 isn't a help because currently no wireless units made
for professional use in the USA work on those freqs.

There are a lot of older VHF sets out there, though. They are not
as popular because the multipath issues become harder to deal with
using the longer wavelengths, but there are still plenty of Lectro and
Vega VHF sets out there.

The idea of the
registry could help theatres and churches possibly (if the technology
works and cheating on power levels of the white space devices isn't
allowed), but helps film/video etc users not at all. I don't
understand, yet, how the freq. sensing aspect of the individual white-
space device type phone etc would work in practice under real world
conditions. At this point I figure I'm going to be screwed by this
change somehow, so I'd like the rules to be set so we can see how
things are going to work and what the new technical challenges for
users will be more exactly, and sooner rather than later.

This is more or less true. Actual tests of one of the "white space"
devices last month showed it not to work very well at all, although
it will probably improve.

There was a comment earlier in this thread about heightened FCC
enforcement in the the above-700MHz bands after Feb 19. Does that
mean we'll have heightened enforcement all over the spectrum, or just
above 700MHz?

Above 700 MHz is going to be a public service band. When interference to
public services occurs, the FCC takes it a lot more seriously than interference
to other services.

What form will this enforcement take--should we expect
lots of roving FCC compliance vans on our streets after Feb 19?
Did the FCC get additional budget from congress to hire more
enforcement agents to do this work, since it will be in addition to
all the enforcement the FCC is already doing?

No, but you can guess that causing interference with your local police
and fire departments will probably get taken more seriously than causing
interference with TV reception and taxi dispatching. The FCC actually does
no real enforcement any longer unless the licensed operators track down the
interference source. But the cops and the fire department are more likely
to do the groundwork.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
tHe main reason these folks want it, google et al, is to
sell that bandwidth to the customer though. COnsider the
big wi fi hotspot using these freqs, "powered by google" and
you get the idea.

I don't think they really understand the business... right now, public
wifi has turned out to be a bad investment. And if they _do_ want to get
into a public service, why not just use existing wifi technology? I do
not see what these "white space" systems really buy them over that.

oops sorry baptist church, you weren't using it when we
scanned our freqs on the tuesday before we installed it.
THen there's the civic auditorium on the edge of the
footprint.

The good news is that the "white space" devices are supposed to check
the spectrum they are using every four minutes, and they are supposed to
exit the _entire TV channel_ if they detect even a single narrowband
emission in it.

The bad news is that you have as much as four minutes of interference
and under crowded conditions you're going to have "white space" devices
coming back to channels marked as bad when they discover that there aren't
any clean channels to go to.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote...
Richard Crowley wrote:
How would you propose that mobile operations be licensed where "mobile"
is frequently defined as an entire state or country, (or planet for that
matter).

There are a couple possibilities. Look at how land-mobile licenses are
handled. With a land-mobile license you can use the shared itinerant
channels, or you can pay more money for a dedicated channel all your own.
The licensing system allows you to buy a license for a small area or for
a large area, and various blocks in-between. You can get a license for
one state, or for the eastern seaboard, or for the whole country. Because
of the auction system for licenses, licenses for more desirable areas and
larger areas cost more.

There are lots of guys over on r.a.m.p.s who use their equipment in a
different
city or state every few weeks/months.

Yup.

Bidding for regional licenses would certainly change the economics
and maybe even the technology of wireless mic usage for location
production. It could end up that only big studios could afford the
licenses and that would cut out the smaller players alltogether.

What does Google want this spectrum for anyway? Nobody has yet given
me a reasonable answer to that question.

They want to be able to send Google content (along with Google ads,
of course) to mobile devices (where "devices" is something more than
just a cell phone with a web browser).

The thing is... by internet standards today, all of this stuff isn't
really very much bandwidth.

But multiply it by 1000x more users.

[[email protected]]

On 2008-11-18 said:
The TV Ch 2-14 isn't a help because currently no wireless units made
for professional use in the USA work on those freqs. The idea of
the registry could help theatres and churches possibly (if the
technology works and cheating on power levels of the white space
devices isn't allowed), but helps film/video etc users not at all.
THere's the rub. It's been years since I've seen a vhf
wireless microphone g. tHey were still crystal controlled
last time iirc g.

IT doesn't even help the churches etc. that much if they do
their scans at a time when those freqs aren't in use.

There was a comment earlier in this thread about heightened FCC
enforcement in the the above-700MHz bands after Feb 19. Does that
mean we'll have heightened enforcement all over the spectrum, or
just above 700MHz? What form will this enforcement take--should we
expect lots of roving FCC compliance vans on our streets after Feb
19? Did the FCC get additional budget from congress to hire more
enforcement agents to do this work, since it will be in addition to
all the enforcement the FCC is already doing?

OF course not, but if they tell you there will be you're
supposed to buy it now. AFter all, it's whatever they tell
you it is. FOllow the money.





Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin, NOvember 1755 from the
Historical review of Pennsylvania

[philper]

On Nov 18, 9:34 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
philper wrote:
I'm glad that the FCC is concerned enough to be talking about this
issue, but what I'm hearing doesn't help me make any plans at all.
The TV Ch 2-14 isn't a help because currently no wireless units made
for professional use in the USA work on those freqs.

There are a lot of older VHF sets out there, though. They are not
as popular because the multipath issues become harder to deal with
using the longer wavelengths, but there are still plenty of Lectro and
Vega VHF sets out there.

The idea of the
registry could help theatres and churches possibly (if the technology
works and cheating on power levels of the white space devices isn't
allowed), but helps film/video etc users not at all. I don't
understand, yet, how the freq. sensing aspect of the individual white-
space device type phone etc would work in practice under real world
conditions. At this point I figure I'm going to be screwed by this
change somehow, so I'd like the rules to be set so we can see how
things are going to work and what the new technical challenges for
users will be more exactly, and sooner rather than later.

This is more or less true. Actual tests of one of the "white space"
devices last month showed it not to work very well at all, although
it will probably improve.

There was a comment earlier in this thread about heightened FCC
enforcement in the the above-700MHz bands after Feb 19. Does that
mean we'll have heightened enforcement all over the spectrum, or just
above 700MHz?

Above 700 MHz is going to be a public service band. When interference to
public services occurs, the FCC takes it a lot more seriously than interference
to other services.

What form will this enforcement take--should we expect
lots of roving FCC compliance vans on our streets after Feb 19?
Did the FCC get additional budget from congress to hire more
enforcement agents to do this work, since it will be in addition to
all the enforcement the FCC is already doing?

No, but you can guess that causing interference with your local police
and fire departments will probably get taken more seriously than causing
interference with TV reception and taxi dispatching. The FCC actually does
no real enforcement any longer unless the licensed operators track down the
interference source. But the cops and the fire department are more likely
to do the groundwork.
--scott

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

In the motion picture and video audio businesses, VHF wireless has not
been used in any professional sense in many years. I don't work in
sound reinforcement or theatrical audio but I haven't seen any VHF
units in their racks in the last 8 years or so either. Lectrosonics
may still make one model of VHF wireless, but that design is from the
late 1980s, is not diversity, not frequency agile, has none of the
scanning capabilities of modern wirelesses and is mic-level out only.
It is not a viable alternative to a 411a system. For the statement
that "Ch. 2-14 will be available for wireless mic use" to have any
meaning there has to be equipment in that range available to end
users. In any case, as I've aid many times, the end users will be
screwed by this because they will have to re-buy all the gear they
presently use and will not be able to sell their current gear except
for salvage value. The above-700MHz closeout is just the warmup for
what's to come.

Philip Perkins

[Scott Dorsey]

philper wrote:
In the motion picture and video audio businesses, VHF wireless has not
been used in any professional sense in many years. I don't work in
sound reinforcement or theatrical audio but I haven't seen any VHF
units in their racks in the last 8 years or so either. Lectrosonics
may still make one model of VHF wireless, but that design is from the
late 1980s, is not diversity, not frequency agile, has none of the
scanning capabilities of modern wirelesses and is mic-level out only.

Yes absolutely. (By the way, diversity helps the multipath issues with
VHF stuff a lot.. it's more of a win at VHF than at UHF). My point was
mostly that there is a huge amount of old obsolete VHF stuff still in
regular use out there.

It is not a viable alternative to a 411a system. For the statement
that "Ch. 2-14 will be available for wireless mic use" to have any
meaning there has to be equipment in that range available to end
users.

Maybe it means I'll be able to sell these first generation Lectro IFB
kits that are cluttering up my garage?

In any case, as I've aid many times, the end users will be
screwed by this because they will have to re-buy all the gear they
presently use and will not be able to sell their current gear except
for salvage value.

Sure, but folks should have expected and planned for that. My worry is
more that the stuff down on the lower bands will become an interference
problem as well (note my later correction that the higher powered
"white space" devices can use the VHF band).

The above-700MHz closeout is just the warmup for
what's to come.

I don't think so... I think the TV broadcasters would howl if any more
cutting was done. What you are seeing here is a change that has been
nearly 20 years in planning and it is the result of an extreme change
in transmission technology. This is a more significant change to the
TV band than the 1954 addition of the color carriers... it's more like
the dramatic format change that they went through in the sixties in the UK.

What the wireless people are seeing is just a tiny little corner of a huge
change, and it's a change that was made without thinking much about the
wireless users. But it's a big change, the kind that comes once in a
generation.

The push for this new "white space" service is something that was not
planned, and was basically railroaded into the system by political
interests at the last minute. And that's bad, but it's a push that came
about because some people with more money than sense saw the dramatic shift
in the broadcast service and thought they could take advantage of it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2008-11-18 (ScottDorsey) said:
The main reason these folks want it, google et al, is to
sell that bandwidth to the customer though. COnsider the
big wi fi hotspot using these freqs, "powered by google" and
you get the idea.
I don't think they really understand the business... right now,
public wifi has turned out to be a bad investment. And if they
_do_ want to get into a public service, why not just use existing
wifi technology? I do not see what these "white space" systems
Just more of the same, if we have the spectrum we sell you
devices, and your devices get our content only. REmember
the evolution of satellite tv systems, from folks with their
home dishes just picking up network feeds to what we have
now. I used to enjoy those days, watch the baseball game
that otherwise wouldn't be showing in my area, but that
which I really wanted to see anyway. I buy the beer and the
pizza, show up at a buddy's g.


oops sorry baptist church, you weren't using it when we
scanned our freqs on the tuesday before we installed it.
THen there's the civic auditorium on the edge of the
footprint.
The good news is that the "white space" devices are supposed to
check the spectrum they are using every four minutes, and they are
supposed to exit the _entire TV channel_ if they detect even a
single narrowband emission in it.
Yah right, supposed to and do it properly though is another
story.

The bad news is that you have as much as four minutes of
interference and under crowded conditions you're going to have
"white space" devices coming back to channels marked as bad when
they discover that there aren't any clean channels to go to.
OF course. tHis is why if I were producing a concert etc.
today I'd have as few folks using wireless for microphones
and monitoring as possible.





Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin, NOvember 1755 from the
Historical review of Pennsylvania

[philper]

On Nov 18, 12:07 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
philper wrote:
In the motion picture and video audio businesses, VHF wireless has not
been used in any professional sense in many years. I don't work in
sound reinforcement or theatrical audio but I haven't seen any VHF
units in their racks in the last 8 years or so either. Lectrosonics
may still make one model of VHF wireless, but that design is from the
late 1980s, is not diversity, not frequency agile, has none of the
scanning capabilities of modern wirelesses and is mic-level out only.

Yes absolutely. (By the way, diversity helps the multipath issues with
VHF stuff a lot.. it's more of a win at VHF than at UHF). My point was
mostly that there is a huge amount of old obsolete VHF stuff still in
regular use out there.

It is not a viable alternative to a 411a system. For the statement
that "Ch. 2-14 will be available for wireless mic use" to have any
meaning there has to be equipment in that range available to end
users.

Maybe it means I'll be able to sell these first generation Lectro IFB
kits that are cluttering up my garage?

In any case, as I've aid many times, the end users will be
screwed by this because they will have to re-buy all the gear they
presently use and will not be able to sell their current gear except
for salvage value.

Sure, but folks should have expected and planned for that. My worry is
more that the stuff down on the lower bands will become an interference
problem as well (note my later correction that the higher powered
"white space" devices can use the VHF band).

The above-700MHz closeout is just the warmup for
what's to come.

I don't think so... I think the TV broadcasters would howl if any more
cutting was done. What you are seeing here is a change that has been
nearly 20 years in planning and it is the result of an extreme change
in transmission technology. This is a more significant change to the
TV band than the 1954 addition of the color carriers... it's more like
the dramatic format change that they went through in the sixties in the UK.

What the wireless people are seeing is just a tiny little corner of a huge
change, and it's a change that was made without thinking much about the
wireless users. But it's a big change, the kind that comes once in a
generation.

The push for this new "white space" service is something that was not
planned, and was basically railroaded into the system by political
interests at the last minute. And that's bad, but it's a push that came
about because some people with more money than sense saw the dramatic shift
in the broadcast service and thought they could take advantage of it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

And how do users plan to use equipment that does not exist? You have
intimated in many other posts that the problems we will be having with
wireless mics are somehow our own fault--that we should have "planned
" for this transition. But since the whole white-space change has not
been really mapped out or presented in much of any detail, how would
planning occur? I'm not interested in legal arguments or what
technology will supplant what other technology, I need to know how to
make purchasing and deployment decisions regarding wireless mic use
for equipment that has to work for several years to make any economic
sense. The FCC will experience a huge
pushback on these issues when a lot people begin to find that their
equipment no longer works as it once did.
These decisions have real economic impact on all sorts of wireless
users, and rules made can become rules changed.

Philip Perkins

[[email protected]]

On Nov 18, 2:15*pm, philper wrote:
On Nov 18, 12:07 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:



philper wrote:
In the motion picture and video audio businesses, VHF wireless has not
been used in any professional sense in many years. *I don't work in
sound reinforcement or theatrical audio but I haven't seen any VHF
units in their racks in the last 8 years or so either. *Lectrosonics
may still make one model of VHF wireless, but that design is from the
late 1980s, is not diversity, not frequency agile, has none of the
scanning capabilities of modern wirelesses and is mic-level out only.

Yes absolutely. *(By the way, diversity helps the multipath issues with
VHF stuff a lot.. it's more of a win at VHF than at UHF). *My point was
mostly that there is a huge amount of old obsolete VHF stuff still in
regular use out there.

It is not a viable alternative to a 411a system. *For the statement
that "Ch. 2-14 will be available for wireless mic use" to have any
meaning there has to be equipment in that range available to end
users.

Maybe it means I'll be able to sell these first generation Lectro IFB
kits that are cluttering up my garage?

In any case, as I've aid many times, the end users will be
screwed by this because they will have to re-buy all the gear they
presently use and will not be able to sell their current gear except
for salvage value.

Sure, but folks should have expected and planned for that. *My worry is
more that the stuff down on the lower bands will become an interference
problem as well (note my later correction that the higher powered
"white space" devices can use the VHF band).

The above-700MHz closeout is just the warmup for
what's to come.

I don't think so... I think the TV broadcasters would howl if any more
cutting was done. *What you are seeing here is a change that has been
nearly 20 years in planning and it is the result of an extreme change
in transmission technology. *This is a more significant change to the
TV band than the 1954 addition of the color carriers... it's more like
the dramatic format change that they went through in the sixties in the UK.

What the wireless people are seeing is just a tiny little corner of a huge
change, and it's a change that was made without thinking much about the
wireless users. *But it's a big change, the kind that comes once in a
generation.

The push for this new "white space" service is something that was not
planned, and was basically railroaded into the system by political
interests at the last minute. *And that's bad, but it's a push that came
about because some people with more money than sense saw the dramatic shift
in the broadcast service and thought they could take advantage of it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

And how do users plan to use equipment that does not exist? *You have
intimated in many other posts that the problems we will be having with
wireless mics are somehow our own fault--that we should have "planned
" for this transition. *But since the whole white-space change has not
been really mapped out or presented in much of any detail, how would
planning occur? *I'm not interested in legal arguments or what
technology will supplant what other technology, I need to know how to
make purchasing and deployment decisions regarding wireless mic use
for equipment that has to work for several years to make any economic
sense. *The FCC will experience a huge
pushback on these issues when a lot people begin to find that their
equipment no longer works as it once did.
These decisions have real economic impact on all sorts of wireless
users, and rules made can become rules changed.

Philip Perkins

Exactly! I'm at a small arts organization that, between two buildings,
own 10 UA series Shure wireless units (700-800 MHz) and need to know
if I can still use them in my theater (inclosed, lots of steal, very
few hits from convention center right below us). Do I need to buy
something else if I get "caught" using the old mics or do I have to
rent every time a client ask for wireless?

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:07:28 -0800 (PST), Mark
wrote:


I've heard, from fabulously unreliable sources, including folks
from Comcast... *both that their internet service is all carried
below channel 2 and above their talk-back (up to 12 MHz-ish...?)
and separately, and that it is on either one, or two, regular channel
spaces. IOW, nothing too believable.


Internet over cable TV , i.e. cable modems, have nothing to do with
the white space devices. Cable modems are on cable and they can
use whatever frequency they like, the white space devices are over
the air and regulated by the FCC.

Sure, but my point goes more towards Google's desire for bandwidth.
Comcast seems to use fairly little bandwidth to provide internet
service, so it must be done by sectioning into neighborhoods.
Google may need to do something similar.

It's not at all clear to me perzactly how this would/will? impact
other users.

Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Scott Dorsey]

philper wrote:

And how do users plan to use equipment that does not exist? You have
intimated in many other posts that the problems we will be having with
wireless mics are somehow our own fault--that we should have "planned
" for this transition. But since the whole white-space change has not
been really mapped out or presented in much of any detail, how would
planning occur?

Okay, there are several things going on here.

First of all there is the rearrangement of the TV bands and the loss of
the upper channels. You should surely have planned for that, since it
was announced six years ago.

Yes, this change leaves very few open channels, and in some urban areas
it doesn't leave any. But don't say you weren't warned.

The "white space" devices are a completely different thing, and that came
out of nowhere and was very badly thought-out. That would not have passed
had the FCC had competent technical management today. But, it did, and
now we're all going to have to find a way to deal with it.

I'm not interested in legal arguments or what
technology will supplant what other technology, I need to know how to
make purchasing and deployment decisions regarding wireless mic use
for equipment that has to work for several years to make any economic
sense.

That's a question for Vega and Lectro to answer, not me. I'd personally
recommend using a licensed channel in the 950 MHz broadcast auxiliary
band, but I predict that there will be a run on licenses in the near
future.

The FCC will experience a huge
pushback on these issues when a lot people begin to find that their
equipment no longer works as it once did.
These decisions have real economic impact on all sorts of wireless
users, and rules made can become rules changed.

The rules on "white space" devices could be changed, and I wouldn't be
surprised if they are. And it's entirely possible that no one will ever
sell any anyway. On the other hand, rearranging the TV band to allow more
unused channels isn't going to happen. Ever. No matter what.

A seperate licensed service for wireless microphones could happen, but it
won't happen unless you put pressure on your elected officials to make it
happen.

Write your congressman and complain. If you've done it already, do it
again.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

Exactly! I'm at a small arts organization that, between two buildings,
own 10 UA series Shure wireless units (700-800 MHz) and need to know
if I can still use them in my theater (inclosed, lots of steal, very
few hits from convention center right below us).

That is part of the frequency band which has been reassigned to public
service use. Six years ago the announcement was made that this band was
going away.

If you get caught interfering with public service facilities, a lot of
people get very angry. Of all the frequencies to squat on, this is almost
as bad as aircraft navigation frequencies and probably worse than most
military comms frequencies in terms of the consequences if you are caught.

Do I need to buy
something else if I get "caught" using the old mics or do I have to
rent every time a client ask for wireless?

If you get caught, folks from the state or county radio department
will come with police officers and take your devices away, and then
you will need to buy something else. The chances of this happening
are pretty slim because there's a lot of bandwidth up there, but the
consequences are not good.

For the meantime, I would suggest renting equipment until the whole
mess is straightened out. But if you're going to use frequencies
without proper licensing, stay away from public service bands.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[philper]

On Nov 18, 4:52 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
philper wrote:

And how do users plan to use equipment that does not exist? You have
intimated in many other posts that the problems we will be having with
wireless mics are somehow our own fault--that we should have "planned
" for this transition. But since the whole white-space change has not
been really mapped out or presented in much of any detail, how would
planning occur?

Okay, there are several things going on here.

First of all there is the rearrangement of the TV bands and the loss of
the upper channels. You should surely have planned for that, since it
was announced six years ago.

Yes, this change leaves very few open channels, and in some urban areas
it doesn't leave any. But don't say you weren't warned.

The "white space" devices are a completely different thing, and that came
out of nowhere and was very badly thought-out. That would not have passed
had the FCC had competent technical management today. But, it did, and
now we're all going to have to find a way to deal with it.

I'm not interested in legal arguments or what
technology will supplant what other technology, I need to know how to
make purchasing and deployment decisions regarding wireless mic use
for equipment that has to work for several years to make any economic
sense.

That's a question for Vega and Lectro to answer, not me. I'd personally
recommend using a licensed channel in the 950 MHz broadcast auxiliary
band, but I predict that there will be a run on licenses in the near
future.

The FCC will experience a huge
pushback on these issues when a lot people begin to find that their
equipment no longer works as it once did.
These decisions have real economic impact on all sorts of wireless
users, and rules made can become rules changed.

The rules on "white space" devices could be changed, and I wouldn't be
surprised if they are. And it's entirely possible that no one will ever
sell any anyway. On the other hand, rearranging the TV band to allow more
unused channels isn't going to happen. Ever. No matter what.

A seperate licensed service for wireless microphones could happen, but it
won't happen unless you put pressure on your elected officials to make it
happen.

Write your congressman and complain. If you've done it already, do it
again.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I think that Lectrosonics should take all they've learned making the
411a and SR systems (and the others too) and make them for VHF band in
channels 2-14, if in fact those channels or any part of them will
become seriously and reliably available. These radios will probably
work great, but will be, I think, much more expensive that what they
are selling now. They could probably do this easily, but the wild
card is whether the whole way wireless mics are designed and the
technology they use will have to change in honor of the white space
devices. What I really want is for the new wirelesses to BE white
space devices. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Spare me the current
technical arguments about why this can't work, you engineer types, and
get in the lab and figure it out. If you do
we'll make you very rich.

When the FCC goons come for my +700MHz band radios I'll hand them
right over, since they'll be worthless at that point anyhow.

Philip Perkins

[[email protected]]

On 2008-11-18 (ScottDorsey) said:
I'm not interested in legal arguments or what
technology will supplant what other technology, I need to know how
to make purchasing and deployment decisions regarding wireless mic
use for equipment that has to work for several years to make any
economic sense.
That's a question for Vega and Lectro to answer, not me. I'd
personally recommend using a licensed channel in the 950 MHz
broadcast auxiliary band, but I predict that there will be a run on
licenses in the near future.
but can a film sound guy get a license in the broadcast
auxiliary band? I didn't think so, but might be wrong.

A seperate licensed service for wireless microphones could happen,
but it won't happen unless you put pressure on your elected
officials to make it happen.
Write your congressman and complain. If you've done it already, do
it again.
WOuld agree. I'm glad I"m in the remote truck business, and
if the job calls for wireless hopefully other folks will
have it and I don't have to make those purchasing decisions
for awhile. IF I have to have it on hand, I can rent
locally to the job.





Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin, NOvember 1755 from the
Historical review of Pennsylvania

[Scott Dorsey]

philper wrote:

I think that Lectrosonics should take all they've learned making the
411a and SR systems (and the others too) and make them for VHF band in
channels 2-14, if in fact those channels or any part of them will
become seriously and reliably available. These radios will probably
work great, but will be, I think, much more expensive that what they
are selling now.

I don't see why they should be more expensive.

They could probably do this easily, but the wild
card is whether the whole way wireless mics are designed and the
technology they use will have to change in honor of the white space
devices.

The way the FCC report and order reads, the white space devices are
supposed to be designed in order to deal with and to step over existing
wireless devices.

What I really want is for the new wirelesses to BE white
space devices. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Spare me the current
technical arguments about why this can't work, you engineer types, and
get in the lab and figure it out. If you do
we'll make you very rich.

No, the "white space devices" are actually not the kind of thing you want
for wireless mikes because they are _required_ to avoid interference. You
don't want your mike muting for a quarter second while the system hops around
looking for a free channel.

Also, you need to know that the real issue isn't the "white space devices"
which may not even ever exist, but the fact that the TV bands are crowded;
there are no longer any unused channels and there are no longer any guard
bands between channels.

The solution for THIS is spread spectrum transmission, and there are a bunch
of people in the wireless industry already working on that. Lectrosonics
is currently making a microphone doing this, and so is Sabine.

When the FCC goons come for my +700MHz band radios I'll hand them
right over, since they'll be worthless at that point anyhow.

The FCC isn't your worry so much as the new users of the band.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
On 2008-11-18 (ScottDorsey) said:
I'm not interested in legal arguments or what
technology will supplant what other technology, I need to know how
to make purchasing and deployment decisions regarding wireless mic
use for equipment that has to work for several years to make any
economic sense.
That's a question for Vega and Lectro to answer, not me. I'd
personally recommend using a licensed channel in the 950 MHz
broadcast auxiliary band, but I predict that there will be a run on
licenses in the near future.

but can a film sound guy get a license in the broadcast
auxiliary band? I didn't think so, but might be wrong.

Yes! It's a pain in the neck, but motion picture production is one of
the industries specifically authorized use of that band. Churches, on
the other hand, are out of luck unless they set themselves up as content
producers.

A seperate licensed service for wireless microphones could happen,
but it won't happen unless you put pressure on your elected
officials to make it happen.
Write your congressman and complain. If you've done it already, do
it again.

WOuld agree. I'm glad I"m in the remote truck business, and
if the job calls for wireless hopefully other folks will
have it and I don't have to make those purchasing decisions
for awhile. IF I have to have it on hand, I can rent
locally to the job.

What I want is a spread spectrum wireless standard, so that interference
becomes a non-issue and different manufacturers' transmitters and receivers
can interoperate.

The advantage of this from the remote truck perspective is that you just
pull up with your own receiver rack, set it by the stage, and pull the
feeds off the stage wireless without having to take splits off the output
from the PA guys' receivers.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2008-11-19 (ScottDorsey) said:
but can a film sound guy get a license in the broadcast
auxiliary band? I didn't think so, but might be wrong.
Yes! It's a pain in the neck, but motion picture production is one
of the industries specifically authorized use of that band.
Churches, on the other hand, are out of luck unless they set
themselves up as content producers.
I"d assume then that an sr company (or) I could. HOWever,
there again, I hope my clients if it's for broadcast and
wireless mics required already have those bases covered g.

WOuld agree. I'm glad I"m in the remote truck business, and
if the job calls for wireless hopefully other folks will
have it and I don't have to make those purchasing decisions
for awhile. IF I have to have it on hand, I can rent
locally to the job.
What I want is a spread spectrum wireless standard, so that
interference becomes a non-issue and different manufacturers'
transmitters and receivers can interoperate.
I've thought this was a perfect application for ss
technology myself for quite awhile.
IF there's enough room for ifb etc. as well.

The advantage of this from the remote truck perspective is that you
just pull up with your own receiver rack, set it by the stage, and
pull the feeds off the stage wireless without having to take splits
off the output from the PA guys' receivers.
Amen brother! ANd everybody using the same standards, so
that I don't have to buy this guy's receivers, and this
guy's, and ...





Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin, NOvember 1755 from the
Historical review of Pennsylvania

[Richard Crowley]

Richard Webb wrote ...
(ScottDorsey) said:
but can a film sound guy get a license in the broadcast
auxiliary band? I didn't think so, but might be wrong.
Yes! It's a pain in the neck, but motion picture production is one
of the industries specifically authorized use of that band.
Churches, on the other hand, are out of luck unless they set
themselves up as content producers.
I"d assume then that an sr company (or) I could. HOWever,
there again, I hope my clients if it's for broadcast and
wireless mics required already have those bases covered g.

WOuld agree. I'm glad I"m in the remote truck business, and
if the job calls for wireless hopefully other folks will
have it and I don't have to make those purchasing decisions
for awhile. IF I have to have it on hand, I can rent
locally to the job.
What I want is a spread spectrum wireless standard, so that
interference becomes a non-issue and different manufacturers'
transmitters and receivers can interoperate.
I've thought this was a perfect application for ss
technology myself for quite awhile.
IF there's enough room for ifb etc. as well.

Spread-spectrum is OK for IFB, but NOT for live/sync sound.
There is too much latency. Spread-spectrum implies frequency-
hopping which uses smart controllers to store-n-forward packets
of data, or repeat the data packets if one got clobbered, etc. But
the STORE in store-n-forward makes the link non-real-time.
This is inconsequential for any data application because you can't
tell if the data is "live" or if it was delayed 100ms. OTOH, audio
that is delayed by 100ms is pretty useless for any life performance
or sync-sound (film/TV) use.

The advantage of this from the remote truck perspective is that you
just pull up with your own receiver rack, set it by the stage, and
pull the feeds off the stage wireless without having to take splits
off the output from the PA guys' receivers.
Amen brother! ANd everybody using the same standards, so
that I don't have to buy this guy's receivers, and this
guy's, and ...

If there were only some way around the latency.

[philper]

I think any new type radios from Lectro (as in diversity, agile,
scanning, with LCD displays and battery monitoring etc ) in the VHF
band will be more expensive than the current UHF units for comparable
performance (ie with a tracking front end as in 411a) since the R+D
etc is being done with current dollars, not 2002 etc dollars, and the
numbers they sell their portable units in are not very big (compared
to rack units for PA use etc).

I actually DO want new wirelesses to act like cel phone/ white space
devices. I want them to find their own free freqs and move when a
clearer freq is found or interference is encountered. I want them to
listen to the environment before they commit to a freq. I want the
uptime on a small internal battery that a cel phone has, and I want
the portable RXs that we'd use in bag-rigs to be the size of cel
phones as well. For this I would gladly pay considerably
more per channel than I have already.

Philip Perkins

[[email protected]]

On 2008-11-19 said:
What I want is a spread spectrum wireless standard, so that
interference becomes a non-issue and different manufacturers'
transmitters and receivers can interoperate.
I've thought this was a perfect application for ss
technology myself for quite awhile.
IF there's enough room for ifb etc. as well.
Spread-spectrum is OK for IFB, but NOT for live/sync sound.
There is too much latency. Spread-spectrum implies frequency-
hopping which uses smart controllers to store-n-forward packets
of data, or repeat the data packets if one got clobbered, etc. But
the STORE in store-n-forward makes the link non-real-time.
GOod point, and one I hadn't thought of in this application!

The advantage of this from the remote truck perspective is
that you just pull up with your own receiver rack, set it by
the stage, and pull the feeds off the stage wireless without
having to take splits off the output from the PA guys'
receivers. Amen brother! ANd everybody using the same standards,
so that I don't have to buy this guy's receivers, and this
guy's, and ...
If there were only some way around the latency.

AGreed. sTill glad I don't have to make those purchasing
decisions right now. I"ll rent proximate to the location
for right now if it's a gotta have it thing.




Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin, NOvember 1755 from the
Historical review of Pennsylvania