Thanks Shure! Shure files petitions with the FCC

puredrifting

puredrifting

Major Contributor
While it may be an exercise in futility, a big thank you to Shure for at least getting in the FCC's face in reagrds to our ongoing White Spaces dilemma. At least someone is raising a flag, asking that the FCC not totally screw over wireless mic users.

http://prosoundnews.com/article/20604

Dan
 
Ditto.

You can buy a 3w or higher walkie-talkie so you can tell your hunting buddy 2 miles away to bring back some beers... but we have to use milliwatt BS and ultra precise frequency work-arounds.

F'ing stupid.

I've never understood all the BS of this issue.

(C'mon BlueTooth and all digital wireless audio.)
 
ive been putting off switching over my 411's to new freq's.
Im just loving that I as a consumer get to shell out over $4 thousand dollars
just to keep my existing gear working.

Not for a new piece of gear..but FOUR GRAND for NOTHING new.
Pisses me off.
 
Yup,

This is what happens when an outgoing FCC Chairman is bought part and parcel by special interest lobbyists with big bucks behind them. Microsoft, Google, Dell, HP, Intel, Philips, Earthlink, and Samsung Electro-Mechanics have a pretty big collective checkbook, what chance did the relatively puny wireless microphone makers have against that kind of money?

Business as usual with the FCC.

D
 
puredrifting said:
Yup,

This is what happens when an outgoing FCC Chairman is bought part and parcel by special interest lobbyists with big bucks behind them. Microsoft, Google, Dell, HP, Intel, Philips, Earthlink, and Samsung Electro-Mechanics have a pretty big collective checkbook, what chance did the relatively puny wireless microphone makers have against that kind of money?

Business as usual with the FCC.

D
Click to expand...

Don't worry, at -114 dBm channel power you probably have nothing to worry about in the way of a commercial offering of a 'TVBD' device anytime soon.

And of course, Sure, along with other mic makers are not going to offer you anything of a 'new' design anytime soon, because it is cheaper to use the same old designs for years.

Recall that before the Green Decision, getting a... wow 300 baud modem from the Phone company was like pulling teeth... and of course, the yowls of the Phone Company about 'if unrestricted access of modems to the phone company circuits were just 'allowed', why mom, apple pie, and the civilization as we know would go to electronic noise hell in a hand basket'...

I see the same sort of syndrome in some of the 'Sure' responses.

Instead of offering a 'cheap' scanning solution for their systems, which by the way would actually assist users of the mics far more that worring about whatever some other device may be doing, to setup in situations were there are many mics, say a conferences, and mutual mic interference almost guarenteed... the Sures and allies, seem to be saying, we don't want to offer our customers solutions which look forward, because there is too much of a profit margine built in to the products we produce on designs that have only marginally been improved since Marconi and Armstrong.

For example, but placing PN code sequence on their FM pilot they could not only identify a 'sure' mic (or other brand), but also allow you to more accurately identify a mic interferer when things are not working right.

But then, perhaps most of you only use one mic and never within 10 miles of any other form of interferer.... somewhere in Montana...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I see the same sort of syndrome in some of the 'Sure' responses.

Instead of offering a 'cheap' scanning solution for their systems, which by the way would actually assist users of the mics far more that worring about whatever some other device may be doing, to setup in situations were there are many mics, say a conferences, and mutual mic interference almost guarenteed... the Sures and allies, seem to be saying, we don't want to offer our customers solutions which look forward, because there is too much of a profit margine built in to the products we produce on designs that have only marginally been improved since Marconi and Armstrong.

For example, but placing PN code sequence on their FM pilot they could not only identify a 'sure' mic (or other brand), but also allow you to more accurately identify a mic interferer when things are not working right.

But then, perhaps most of you only use one mic and never within 10 miles of any other form of interferer.... somewhere in Montana...
Click to expand...

With all the economical ways to build wireless mic systems I wonder why all the little guys constantly sit back and watch Lectro and Zaxcom stomp all over them?

Why is the Sennheiser G2 series the only real entry-level contender? :huh:

When all these elitist wireless producers are forcing us to accept the high-profit screwing for gear that performs, based on old tech... you'd think somebody else would like a piece of that pie... I wonder why nobody else is picking up that easy win?

I will say that the cheap scanning solution in the G2 series... which allows you 1400 channels of non-cross-talk performance... is STILL less likely to yield a reliable signal then a Lectro w/ a single dialed-in frequency.

My gripe is mainly in OUTPUT, and frequency restriction... but if there's a cheap design that would yield great results then I would expect one of the companies currently making junk wireless could easily step up and take over the world of wireless audio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top