700 MHz and Wireless Mics
Now that the DTV transition has turned out to be "Y2K-like" moment rather than a "Hurricane Katrina-like" moment it is time to get on to other issues that have been ignored for too long. Historians can address the question of what would have happened if the transition had happened in February as originally scheduled and how good or bad a job the Martin chairmanship did in preparation.
On Saturday, Acting Chairman Copps said, "Job One in the coming days and weeks is to help restore service to those consumers who may still be experiencing difficulties."
Let me respectfully disagree. Chairman Martin minimized non-DTV spectrum policy issues during his tenure and only addressed them when forced to by Congress. Thus there was a backlog by the election. Then Sen. Rockefeller urged FCC to focus on DTV after the election and almost everything else came to a halt. It is time to start a reasonable transition to start addressing issues other than pure DTV. So in this post and the next one I will review two DTV transition-related issues that have been ignored in the rush to June 12.
FCC still has not evicted wireless microphones from the 700 MHz band as was proposed in Docket 08-167 (certainly later than it should have been.)
Let me be specific here. On June 14, 2 days after the DTV transition, I attended an affair at the Madison, Wisconsin Hilton Madison Monona Terrace hotel. I noticed a wireless mic was in use and during a break I checked it out. It was an Audio-Technica model, FCC ID: JFZT52B. The operating frequency was marked as 744.85 MHz The chart below shows the significance of that number:
This is the former TV channel 59. However, due to inaction in Docket 08-167, continued sale and use of this unit by Part 74 licensees is perfectly legal! Now hotels are not eligible for Part 74 licenses so their use was illegal, but FCC has "turned its blind eye to this issue for at least a decade.Recall Auction 49? Check the chart below:
The band that includes 744.85 MHz was auctioned off by FCC in 2003 with full access after the DTV transition. Are the licensees happy?If you think the wireless mic manufacturers are taking steps to get their customers, who may have bought new equipment as recently as 2 years ago, to vacate 700 MHz then look at teh following snapshot of Shure's press releases as of June 12th:
See any guidance on vacating 700 MHz at any time?Let's resolve these issues now by acting on Docket 08-167! May I also suggest that the enforcement issues involved be resolved by signing consent agreements with Shure and Audio-Technica to set aside any enforcement issue for their aggressive merchandising to users ineligible for licenses if they promptly start a public information campaign to expedite departures from 700 MHz, offer credit to 700 MHz equipment users with recent equipment, and make direct mailings to all known users from warranty information databases.
Posts
3 comments:
First, I'll reiterate my position that I also believe the FCC should issue a final R&O on 08-166 (08-167 is PISC's informal complaint, whereas 08-166 is the FCC's own revision proposal) immediately: It will remove any question about the status of *any* Part 74 devices operating in 700MHz. Besides, I can find no valid indication at this time of any meaningful opposition.
As to Shure, Audio-Technica and the other wireless mic manufacturers; perhaps the reason you found nothing in Shure's 2009 press releases regarding vacating the 700MHz band is because this is old news in our industry. If you go to Shure's home page, you'll immediately see a link on the bottom right labeled "Important Update Regarding Wireless Microphones"; this brings one to a rather comprehensive explantion and additional links on 700MHz, TVBDs and their 700MHz rebate program.
In fact, all the major wireless manufacturers in the US market (Shure, Sennheiser, Lectrosonics, Audio-Technica and Nady) have links on their home pages or on the first page of their wireless mic sections regarding the spectrum issues at hand, and all are offering a 700MHz rebate programs, and have done so for at least a year now. In short, the manufacturers have substantive public information campaign efforts directly and through their legitimate dealers to 1)inform the user base of all the spectrum changes, and 2)get 700MHz out of the field (the fact this is proving to be a nice revenue windfall doesn't hurt either). Anecdotal evidence from sales and rebate figures suggests the effort is pretty successful in significantly reducing the numbers of 700MHz equipment still in operation.
My rather strong suggestion to 700MHz spectrum auction winners and PS entities for the immediate future is to be proactive when they see a 700MHz Part 74 device in operation: Request to see the license, and call the FCC if none is produced. Professional level pro audio companies are for the most part out of 700MHz; those less professional need to be kicked at every opportunity.
Of course once 700MHz systems start testing en-masse at decent power levels, significant numbers of remaining 700MHz wireless mic users will suffer intolerable interference and will vacate.
Was the wireless mic I stumbled on in the Wisconsin hotel the only 700 MHz one still being used in the USA? I doubt it.
I am willing to believe that the pros like Henry Cohen have all switched, but the reality is that there are a lot of low end wireless mic users who bought the mics years ago and have no communications with the manufacturers until something breaks.
Also the wireless mic interference with 700 MHz CMRS and public safety/PS users is NOT symmetric. It depends whether the frequency used is an uplink or downlink frequency for the mobile users and what the mobile users range to base station is.
In particular a wireless mic on a PS downlink frequency may not experience any interference if the PS base station is a few miles away, but could cause unexpected interference to a PS user in the venue where the wireless mic is used. How many times does this have to happen before FCC does something?
". . . but the reality is that there are a lot of low end wireless mic users who bought the mics years ago and have no communications with the manufacturers until something breaks."
The only possible bright side to this is that low end wireless gear has shorter usable lifespan and is more susceptible to interference than their more expensive counterparts.
_
"In particular a wireless mic on a PS downlink frequency may not experience any interference if the PS base station is a few miles away, but could cause unexpected interference to a PS user in the venue where the wireless mic is used. How many times does this have to happen before FCC does something?"
Agreed. I see no legitimate reason why a final R&O shouldn't be on Genachowski's first days to do list.
Post a Comment