The FCC F'ed Wireless Audio Users
- Thread starter adamr316
- Start date
Captain Pierce
Veteran
Many of the manufacturers have exactly these sorts of things in at least some of their systems (typically the more expensive ones
). For example, the Sennheiser 300 series and up have an auto-scan to find clear channels; and even their entry-level 100 series have a "pilot" that will let them work even on a non-clear channel when the transmitter is on. (The problem is that, once somebody turns that transmitter off, the static comes through loud and clear.)I simply don't see this happening. The whole appeal of the "white spaces" for these devices is that (with powerful enough transmitters, such as those used by TV stations) these frequencies can travel long distances. So, the way I'm reading it, what you're expecting is for a transmitter that's, let's say, in the power range of a low-power TV station (I'm assuming these devices won't be broadcasting at full TV station power) to sense a signal that has a theoretical maximum range of 300 feet (and a real-world range far less than that). It's not going to be able to sense that wireless transmitter coming on, because it's going to be drowning the wireless out.
The way it was explained to one of my company's techs at a Shure seminar was, the WSD's will be required to work around an FCC database of licensed wireless users in any given area--but, the real catch here is, current FCC regulations don't allow most wireless users to become licensed. As an example, the local ABC affiliate can be licensed, but the church a block up the street from them where I've installed wireless mics can't.
Yeah, but again, we're talking about systems with short ranges. Even here in what most of you would consider a "small" town, there are churches big enough that you could have one wireless system on a given frequency in the actual church, and another on the same frequency in the "fellowship hall" on the other side of the complex, and not have them interfere with each other because they're just too far away.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
I don't know what the procedure will be for registering FM wireless mics, so that the WSD can be initialized from the database, and then given location, avoid known spectrum. The WSD's have two classes of operation. fixed, and mobile. In the fixed case I think the max power is 4 W. In the mobile case its 100 mW, and further downgraded to 40 mW when operating in an 'adjacent' channel to an occupied channel.
I think the FCC has ignored the church usage issue for quite a while... perhaps this is a time for a 'come to Jesus' call...
On the other hand, perhaps the churches can take advantage of the 'new' concept, and utilize whatever commercial offerings are developed that conform to the WSD type of operation...
Same here, I did a google search for " 614.000mHz-806.000mHz" and only this thread came up.
I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that "700mHz" is 698-806, & 614-698 is safe. I have a Sony set that runs on ch68 & 69 (700mHZ), but feel that I'll be able to find spots to use next March and beyond, until I get the cash for new Lectros.
if you're really scared, just think about how long the DTV transistion has taken. it will take a WHILE for the frequencies to be taken up. but when those mHz are gone, we should have much better web for cells & GPS (traffic updates) & laptops in the park & ... & ... & ...
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
As I recall the spectrum from 698 to 890, TV channels 52-83, or some portion thereof, was up for auction and there was some business about Google trying to buy it, but the bid was 'too low', or not enough bidders, so the FCC defered the auction... don't recall the details... as far as I know the only safe segment of spectrum is TV channel 37, 608-614... which is locked out for radio astronomy... like everyone has a radio observatory in their backyard... and who knows, perhaps even that is up for grabs .
ok, so in all the years I've been in this business I see nearly every professional use Lectrosonics gear. I've seen a few people use Sony wireless, & they all want Lectro.
so I kinda think Lectrosonics is a good company & knows what they are doing.
check here to see what they have to say about the FCC
http://www.lectrosonics.com/PressReleases/whitespace/whitespace.htm
like the article says, if you're scared about the DTV conversion & FCC selling off wireless space, go back to 1998 & 1999 & read about Y2K. then try to find anything about Y2k in written in 2001.
so I kinda think Lectrosonics is a good company & knows what they are doing.
check here to see what they have to say about the FCC
http://www.lectrosonics.com/PressReleases/whitespace/whitespace.htm
like the article says, if you're scared about the DTV conversion & FCC selling off wireless space, go back to 1998 & 1999 & read about Y2K. then try to find anything about Y2k in written in 2001.
John Willett
Veteran
Only in the USA.
In the UK, Lectro is extremely rare.
The pros use Audio Ltd., Sennheiser and Micron.
In mainland Europe it is more Sennheiser.
good to know other quality & trusted brands,
but since this thread is about the FCC (& I'm pretty sure the FCC has no say in the UK & Europe) I'm going to trust the wireless leader in the US to be well informed about what is really going on in the wireless world in the US
is there any of this craziness w/ DTV on the other side of the pond?
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
The same discussions are taking place in the EU as well. Europe has tended to have even less power for 'unlicensed' applications than the US in the 2.4 and 5.8 GHz bands, reguluations for any 'white space device', would probably follow that line as well. In addition, DVB-T doesn't have as 'nice' a signature as ATSC/8VSB signalling.
John Willett
Veteran
Yes, and probably worse than the USA - and all the radiomic. manufacturers and distributors have got together to lobby parliament.
See HERE.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
You are correct, I have been interviewing Lectro, Sennheiser and Sony and it is definitely 698.
Dan
John Willett
Veteran
Two points.
1)
European users please note that US Ch.69 is totally different from a European Ch.69. In the US this is around 700MHz - In Europe, Ch.69 is 854 - 862MHz.
2)
The latest issue of "Broadcast Engineering" has several interesting articles about the Digital Switch-over.
1)
European users please note that US Ch.69 is totally different from a European Ch.69. In the US this is around 700MHz - In Europe, Ch.69 is 854 - 862MHz.
2)
The latest issue of "Broadcast Engineering" has several interesting articles about the Digital Switch-over.
moonlitnite
Well-known member
IMHO, with the U.S. economic fiasco driving new infrastructure initiatives such as affordable broadband (Google's Eric Schmidt seems to have the ear of President elect Obama), we should anticipate the FCC will continue to gobble up valuable white space in the UHF band. Like it or not, in balance the FCC orders are predicated on the "public necessity and convenience."
And since we're a small specialized constituency with little effect on the economy, we shouldn't anticipate much in the way of grandfathered precedence or compassionate use.
Bottom line - keep your eyes (and options) open for future FCC developments.
Regards, Michael
And since we're a small specialized constituency with little effect on the economy, we shouldn't anticipate much in the way of grandfathered precedence or compassionate use.
Bottom line - keep your eyes (and options) open for future FCC developments.
Regards, Michael
John Willett
Veteran
Not true really.
It's all part of the Entertainment Industry.
Not enough radiomics and Broadway closes. Hollywood can't make films, and TV programs can't be made.
Unfortunately the bl**dy politicians are so blinded by Dollar signs from the sell-off, they don't see the consequences.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
The problem with the UHF band is that it was reserved for TV... and in almost everywhere outside of the major metropolitan areas, the spectrum is way under utilized. Then in places like New York, any 'holes' are filled with the RF products of the various transmitters... making for a rather ugly RF environment... not to mention the steel canyons of the buildings... So even if one has the license... the situation is problematic.
How cell phones overcome this is, by having a large number of antennas, repeaters, and links to wired connections, placed 'everywhere'...
There are also 'processing' ways of dealing with interference, at least in the sense of the transmission of data from the mic to the receiver. As with most things, additional processing means more circuits, battery consumption, and 'bulkier' devices... hey recall the 2 lbs 'luggable' cell phones of say the early 90's...
The real problem may be that , the 'mic' is broadcasting an analog signal, via FM. It is at the receiver that the digitiziation/analog recording occurs. In any 'digital' from the mic solution, the digitization process would be in the mic itself.
A quick check on the Sennheiser site shows there is a 'digital' wireless offering. I don't know what the pro reception to the 'digital' solution is... but such a solution would allow for the use of certain transmission capabilties, like error detection and correction, resilience from certain types of interference, etc.