Yes, someone is checking...

museav

CBMod
CB Mods
Departed Member
Found this article posted elsewhere by Chris Lyons at Shure to be interesting. It doesn't seem that directly relevant until you realize that the comment "Fankhauser's reports will tell the company when dropped calls or interference occurs and when a signal is weak." can mean Verizon tracking sources of interference such as 700MHz wireless mics. So even if the FCC doesn't have people driving around looking for unauthorized 700MHz systems, apparently Verizon and probably the other users of that spectrum do.
 
Can you link to the article please?

I need to check if this is a "letter to my congressman" sized deal, or if this is a "git mah shotgun out an' dig in fer dat varmint" magnitude like the lightbulb ban.
 
Can you link to the article please?

I need to check if this is a "letter to my congressman" sized deal, or if this is a "git mah shotgun out an' dig in fer dat varmint" magnitude like the lightbulb ban.

Whats either going to do for you? Operating 700mhz gear is against the law and has been for over a year. It sucks that the 700mhz spectrum got sold, but its a done deal.
 
Whats either going to do for you? Operating 700mhz gear is against the law and has been for over a year. It sucks that the 700mhz spectrum got sold, but its a done deal.

Fair enough...But aren't they planning on selling of another large chunk (Shure ULX area) in a few years? I can't really do anything about 700 mHz, but we could certainly try and save other areas in the future. (With the letters, I doubt the shotgun could really do any good)
 
Fair enough...But aren't they planning on selling of another large chunk (Shure ULX area) in a few years? I can't really do anything about 700 mHz, but we could certainly try and save other areas in the future. (With the letters, I doubt the shotgun could really do any good)

I haven't heard anything about that yet, care to link where your getting that information from?
 
Can you link to the article please?
I guess that would help! :oops:

In photos: Riding shotgun with the Verizon network tester - FierceWireless


There are all sorts of general intent statements and speculation regarding future spectrum allocations. An interesting perspective recently presented by someone with a very solid knowledge of the issues was that some of the speculation regarding reallocating and auctioning off additional UHF spectrum seems to be affecting the TVBD (White Space Device) advocates and developers as along with some yet unresolved technical challenges and delays in establishing the related databases and their management, they are seeing the possibility of there potentially being very limited 'white space' and more competing technologies. In a way this does not surprise me as some of the basic tenets behind justifying TVBDs seemed very similar to the intents of AT&T and Verizon with their purchased spectrum rights.

The parties that lobbied for and won free use of unassigned and unused UHF spectrum probably shouldn't be too surprised to see the FCC discussing reducing that spectrum in order to sell some of it. What they won may be a bit like Navin Johnson's response when asked "What'd I win?" in The Jerk, "Uh, anything in this general area right in here. Anything below the stereo and on this side of the bicentennial glasses. Anything between the ashtrays and the thimble. Anything in this three inches right in here in this area. That includes the Chiclets, but not the erasers."
 
Last edited:
Keep an eye on the AT&T / T Mobile merger. Their big complaint is that they will run out of spectrum to offer broadband service to their projected customers in less than 5 years. This is why they want to go through with the deal. They are really pushing for a "consolidation and release of more of the spectrum" to their industry. NPR this afternoon interviewed someone from the FCC and a technology policy expert and said the opening of more of the spectrum was very likely to happen sooner than later.

~Dave
 
Last edited:
Keep an eye on the AT&T / T Mobile merger. Their big complaint is that they will run out of spectrum to offer broadband service to their projected customers in less than 5 years. This is why they want to go through with the deal. They are really pushing for a "consolidation and release of more of the spectrum" to their industry. NPR this afternoon interviewed someone from the FCC and a technology policy expert and said the opening of more of the spectrum was very likely to happen sooner than later.

~Dave


I never understood why the cell phone industry doesnt use Encoded signals to use the same frequency and allow the devices to change within a range to find the best signal. Would certainly allow them to not require so many frequencies. Or maybe we should be looking into a better wireless system?
 
I never understood why the cell phone industry doesnt use Encoded signals to use the same frequency and allow the devices to change within a range to find the best signal. Would certainly allow them to not require so many frequencies. Or maybe we should be looking into a better wireless system?

That's pretty much how all modern cell phone systems work. :) In a CDMA based system (which all cell phones use, even AT&T and T-Mobile now), multiple phones share the same channel (frequency, though it's 5 MHz wide generally). In doing so, we save bandwidth and also allow multiple towers to monitor the same call to help beat dropped calls.

With respect to spectrum auctions, a few notes. First, Muse is right on (as always). There has been plenty of discussion as of late about further spectrum auctions, and I don't mean to scare anyone but we ought to be worried. This WILL affect us, again, at some point down the road.

But. If you stick to the prescribed wireless mic channels (first vacant channel below and above TV 37) I think you'll be more or less safe (and this is just a gut feeling, but if I were buying, I'd be betting on the stuff at or BELOW TV 37). As I've said for years, wireless is not a place to scrimp and save. Buy systems that are reliable and robust against interference. If you can, buy in the VHF bands. VHF in particular is unattractive to new digital users due to multipath issues, propagation, and natural noise...but it works great for wireless mics!

Read the FAQ too. :)

That help? Ask if anything not clear, we're here to help you.
 
"The FCC should initiate a rule making proceeding to reallocate
120 megahertz from the broadcast television (TV) bands."

http://download.broadband.gov/plan/national-broadband-plan-chapter-5-spectrum.pdf

page 76

National Broadband Plan ... a quick google search would tell you a lot more.

Just a note, the NBP is not law nor is it binding for the Commission. It's just a series of recommendations...nothing's official until we see a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking come out of SW Washington.
 
That's pretty much how all modern cell phone systems work. :) In a CDMA based system (which all cell phones use, even AT&T and T-Mobile now), multiple phones share the same channel (frequency, though it's 5 MHz wide generally).
Could you explain this further? I was under the impression that a cell phone provider used either CDMA or GSM and that one carrier's phones were not compatible with the other. Are you saying that I can use a Verizon CDMA phone on Tmobile's GSM network?
 
It's just a series of recommendations...nothing's official until we see a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking come out of SW Washington.

That is correct ... but ... it has also been blessed by the President Statement from the President on the National Broadband Plan | The White House and of course the even bigger factor is the $$$. The government figures it's losing out on roughly $50 Billion with the status quo. Big money always seems to find a way.;)

For now, you should just be aware of it and know that it is proceeding as planned.http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Midmarket/...h-Broadband-Plan-Despite-Court-Ruling-876112/ http://www.ticotimes.net/Current-Ed...ternet-plan-moves-forward_Friday-June-17-2011
 
Well, my question is when all the white space is sold, is anyone gonna notice that wireless mics go away? I would imagine those on broadway would flip a ___, Rock shows will just pass out wired mics like they used to, Brittany will have to change the way she does her act, but should this happen, who is going to be the most hurt? Whos gonna step in with the billions to free up some space for wireless mics first?
 
Could you explain this further? I was under the impression that a cell phone provider used either CDMA or GSM and that one carrier's phones were not compatible with the other. Are you saying that I can use a Verizon CDMA phone on Tmobile's GSM network?

In the communications field, CDMA is a generic term (Code Division Multiple Access). The old "GSM v. CDMA" reflects more the heritage of the carriers' systems than anything else. Nevertheless, AT&T's CDMA network (more correctly, their UMTS network) is not compatible with Verizon/Sprint/USCellular/NTelos/etc (which use IS-95 and Ev-DO, which are also CDMA based). Yes, they're both CDMA, but they have different parameters and very different network back ends.

Now LTE, on the other hand, *should* be compatible between Verizon and AT&T but my money says they'll figure out a way to spoil that too.

I'm happy to explain more if that doesn't make much sense.
 
That is correct ... but ... it has also been blessed by the President Statement from the President on the National Broadband Plan | The White House and of course the even bigger factor is the $$$. The government figures it's losing out on roughly $50 Billion with the status quo. Big money always seems to find a way.;)

For now, you should just be aware of it and know that it is proceeding as planned.FCC Moves Forward with Broadband Plan Despite Court Ruling - Midmarket - News & Reviews - eWeek.com http://www.ticotimes.net/Current-Ed...ternet-plan-moves-forward_Friday-June-17-2011

dboomer, that article is over a year old and not relevant to the discussion at hand. Sorry! :)

Also, the NBP does not spell out the technical details on what spectrum might be auctioned off. Take my word, if you buy standard UHF wireless mics that operate in the 500 MHz and low 600 MHz areas, you'll be fine for a number of years. There's too much at stake with white spaces anyway to kill off the entire TV band. I'd prefer VHF wireless mics but they're few and far between these days and manufacturers have not put significant R&D into them in a number of years (quite a shame, IMO). 900 MHz/2.4 GHz is just too unpredictable for professional operations (yes, I know Lectro and others have put out systems there, but I wouldn't buy one just yet without extensive field and bench testing).
 
Last edited:
Hi Mike

Sorry ... here's a better link ... Federal Communications Commission's National Broadband Plan Action Agenda Just a little light reading;) The FCC has issued numbers of PN's (public notices) and NPRM's (notice of proposed rule making) directly to this issue. It is likely that the initiative will not look like the proposal upon completion but unlikely that it won't bare strong resemblance.

The plan is not to take down the whole TV band but to take away a little over half of it for broadband infrastructure, consumer and public safety use.

Your "you'll be fine for a number of years" just depends on how many years that actually turns out to be. Just this week Microsoft announced testing of super wi-fi/whitespace devices in Cambridge England. Yes, that's not in the USA. but you know it will filter back.

Just to be completely above board, I do work for a company that manufacturers a 2.4 GHz digital alternative, so I do have a dog in the fight and readers should take that into account. I'm merely pointing out that anyone considering purchasing new wireless systems better do their homework and determine their level of comfort with return on investment. I'm just inviting them to explore.
 
Hi Mike

Sorry ... here's a better link ... Federal Communications Commission's National Broadband Plan Action Agenda Just a little light reading;) The FCC has issued numbers of PN's (public notices) and NPRM's (notice of proposed rule making) directly to this issue. It is likely that the initiative will not look like the proposal upon completion but unlikely that it won't bare strong resemblance.

True. I've heard the 120 MHz number as well, but more recently what I've heard is that it is highly unlikely that the Commission will involuntarily reclaim spectrum from TV broadcasters. They may, however, do some repacking. If it were me, I would be looking really closely at the 614-698 spectrum (84 MHz total). For land mobile use (public safety, mobile broadband, etc), this is the best spectrum primarily for frequency reuse and for antenna size considerations. This is why I suggest that anyone buying new wireless mics in the UHF band stick to stuff between 470 and 608 MHz. It's completely a gut feeling, but it's based on what I've heard in a number of different circles.

I can also tell you that Chmn. Genachowski has publicly committed to maintaining TV white space in some form. I was in the room when he said it.

The plan is not to take down the whole TV band but to take away a little over half of it for broadband infrastructure, consumer and public safety use.

Your "you'll be fine for a number of years" just depends on how many years that actually turns out to be. Just this week Microsoft announced testing of super wi-fi/whitespace devices in Cambridge England. Yes, that's not in the USA. but you know it will filter back.

I've also got a license to test white space devices in the TV Bands in Blacksburg, VA. :)

WF2XPA

But, I don't disagree with you that parts of the TV band are going to be going away. The free ride ended a few years ago. The problem is that nobody has stepped up with a good solution to the problem in the audio industry. Those still in UHF are throwing software and blinky lights at the problem, and hoping nobody notices. Sure, dynamic spectrum access is cool and all, but it's not a real solution to the problem.

Here's my issue with 900 MHz (902-928, NOT the 944-952 band): It's got too much stuff in it, and it's not predictable. Unless you're walking around with a spectrum analyzer, there's no way to know what's going to interfere with you. Off the top of my head, radiolocation, traffic light systems, amateur radio operators, baby monitors, cordless phones, wireless TV senders, and a bunch of other Part 15 devices operate on either a licensed or unlicensed basis (not to mention the true ISM users of the band--heating and so forth). A quick search of the FCC's Database for licenses in this band in a 25-mile radius of Blacksburg, VA turned up 14 licenses (all for location/positioning).

2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz is less predictable due to people's computers running Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. Heck, half of the cell phones sold today have Wi-Fi radios in them and 90% probably have bluetooth.

So the bottom line is, for a mission critical system you need a band with some level of predictability. TV offers this (or, it will until the White Space Devices hit the market). I still think High Band VHF is the BEST place for wireless mics. I know the antennas will be large but at least the spectrum will be clear.

Just to be completely above board, I do work for a company that manufacturers a 2.4 GHz digital alternative, so I do have a dog in the fight and readers should take that into account. I'm merely pointing out that anyone considering purchasing new wireless systems better do their homework and determine their level of comfort with return on investment. I'm just inviting them to explore.

Which is something I encourage everyone to do if they're going to drop thousands of dollars on a wireless audio system.
 
Sure, dynamic spectrum access is cool and all, but it's not a real solution to the problem.

Did you leave the "h" out on purpose?:lol:

There are dynamic spectrum methods and then again there other dynamic spectrum methods. Our technology hops every 300 ns (that's right ... nano) whether there is something there or not. That's a might short dropout. But since we are sending a digital signal that is only a data drop and not an audio drop. So add our error concealment/correction on top of that there's no loss of audio

IMHO ... the only thing that is gonna work for most users in the very near future (1,2,3 years) are radios that are smart enough to deal with crowded bands and high RF noise floors ... unless you work inside a Faraday cage.
 
Did you leave the "h" out on purpose?:lol:

There are dynamic spectrum methods and then again there other dynamic spectrum methods. Our technology hops every 300 ns (that's right ... nano) whether there is something there or not. That's a might short dropout. But since we are sending a digital signal that is only a data drop and not an audio drop. So add our error concealment/correction on top of that there's no loss of audio

Of course, the reason it does that is because the FCC mandates it in Part 15.247 of the Rules... :) You can't just light up a single frequency carrier in 900 MHz unless you go wideband (>500 kc bandwidth and digital modulation only).

IMHO ... the only thing that is gonna work for most users in the very near future (1,2,3 years) are radios that are smart enough to deal with crowded bands and high RF noise floors ... unless you work inside a Faraday cage.

Absolutely correct. The bottom line is that good receivers (the only real thing that matters) cost money to design and manufacture. Filters and high quality RF components aren't cheap, and making sure it gets built right isn't exactly cheap either (throw a stone and you'll hit a foreign manufacturing nightmare where the electronics that were properly designed in the US got modified for manufacture in China).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back