# Yes, someone is checking...



## museav (Jun 20, 2011)

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.


----------



## LXPlot (Jun 20, 2011)

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.


----------



## Footer (Jun 20, 2011)

LXPlot said:


> 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.


----------



## LXPlot (Jun 20, 2011)

Footer said:


> 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)


----------



## Toffee (Jun 20, 2011)

LXPlot said:


> 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?


----------



## museav (Jun 20, 2011)

LXPlot said:


> Can you link to the article please?


I guess that would help! 

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."


----------



## DaveySimps (Jun 21, 2011)

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


----------



## DuckJordan (Jun 21, 2011)

DaveySimps said:


> 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?


----------



## mbenonis (Jun 21, 2011)

DuckJordan said:


> 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.


----------



## dboomer (Jun 27, 2011)

Toffee said:


> I haven't heard anything about that yet, care to link where your getting that information from?



"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.


----------



## mbenonis (Jun 27, 2011)

dboomer said:


> "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
> ...


 
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.


----------



## Tex (Jun 28, 2011)

mbenonis said:


> 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?


----------



## dboomer (Jun 28, 2011)

mbenonis said:


> 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


----------



## shiben (Jun 28, 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?


----------



## mbenonis (Jun 28, 2011)

Tex said:


> 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.


----------



## mbenonis (Jun 28, 2011)

dboomer said:


> 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).


----------



## dboomer (Jun 29, 2011)

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.


----------



## mbenonis (Jun 29, 2011)

dboomer said:


> 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.


dboomer said:


> 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.


dboomer said:


> 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.


----------



## dboomer (Jun 29, 2011)

mbenonis said:


> 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?

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.


----------



## mbenonis (Jun 30, 2011)

dboomer said:


> Did you leave the "h" out on purpose?
> 
> 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).


dboomer said:


> 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).


----------



## Chris15 (Jul 3, 2011)

I'll be just as keen as everyone else to see the product that really hits the digital wireless nail on the head...
I just haven't seen it yet.

First 2 things it needs to have:
Latency <2ms end to end
AES outputs as well as analogue on the back. (Both need to remain under that latency window)

Thereafter it needs to have no noticeable audio artefacts, it needs to have antenna distribution options, the provision for remote antennas (with a designed preamp system as neccessary to help mitigate the signal losses at say 2G4).

What would be REALLY cool would be a system whereby the link between "antennas" and receivers was a piece of UTP and RF - data processing was done at the antenna. Then you are just looking at data and antenna positioning would become really simple. Look at the way the managed wireless network systems operate using multiple APs for diversity and then some how get the latency right down...
Mike, do you see any physics reason this could not be achieved?


----------



## mbenonis (Jul 4, 2011)

Chris15 said:


> Thereafter it needs to have no noticeable audio artefacts, it needs to have antenna distribution options, the provision for remote antennas (with a designed preamp system as neccessary to help mitigate the signal losses at say 2G4).



The challenge here is of course, amplifying the signal and not overdriving the amplifier. A very good amplifier could be used though with a high -1dB Compression Point (the point at which the output of the amplifier is compressed 1 dB from the expected value).


Chris15 said:


> What would be REALLY cool would be a system whereby the link between "antennas" and receivers was a piece of UTP and RF - data processing was done at the antenna. Then you are just looking at data and antenna positioning would become really simple. Look at the way the managed wireless network systems operate using multiple APs for diversity and then some how get the latency right down...
> Mike, do you see any physics reason this could not be achieved?


 
I'm not really sure you could put the guys fo the receiver into the antenna. What you could easily do, though, is pull a page from Satellite TV. In a DBS system (like DirecTV), the incoming signal is around 12 GHz, and the LNB at the dish converts this signal down to around 2 GHz. If you did something similar, you could convert say, the 2400-2483.5 MHz band down to 100 MHz or so to mitigate cable losses. I just don't see though how one could do significant demodulation at the antenna for a system with a large number of mics.

Does that answer your question at all, Chris?


----------



## mstaylor (Jul 4, 2011)

At the risk of being a moron, when they bundle a section of frequencies like this, who is buying them? Are the cell phone companies buying portions straight from the govt or are they creating a holding type consortium that then distributes them. 
My question is, why couldn't the sound companies do a similar thing. because of a smaller market it would have to be narrower.They would have to either add the cost to each mic setup or charge a fee to use the band.


----------



## MNicolai (Jul 4, 2011)

mstaylor said:


> At the risk of being a moron, when they bundle a section of frequencies like this, who is buying them? Are the cell phone companies buying portions straight from the govt or are they creating a holding type consortium that then distributes them.
> My question is, why couldn't the sound companies do a similar thing. because of a smaller market it would have to be narrower.They would have to either add the cost to each mic setup or charge a fee to use the band.


 
While Shure has our backs with their lobbying in D.C., they are far too small a company to put up the dough to buy a chunk of the spectrum. It's estimated that their annual revenue is, at most, $5 million.

Chunks of wireless spectrum sell for the billions of dollars -- there's no amount of pitching in that wireless microphone users could do to compete with government agencies and cell carriers short of everyone paying 1000x more for their wireless systems.


----------



## mstaylor (Jul 4, 2011)

That's why we ask these questions.


----------



## mbenonis (Jul 4, 2011)

Mike's right. Add to it, though, that by statute each and every band can only be used for specific things. For instance, the 700 MHz spectrum bought by cell phone providers for 4G wireless can *only* be used for that purpose, no matter who buys them. The decisions on what bands can be used for what services is made by the FCC, and sometimes by Congress (who has to direct the FCC to change their rules).


----------



## museav (Jul 5, 2011)

As an example of Mike's and Mike's responses, in the last auctions the spectrum included in each auction and the general intended use was predefined and parties then bid on each defined 'chunk' of spectrum. Some bands, primarily narrower ones, never received bids, or at least not for the required reserve, and were reassigned for 'public interest' purposes.

A practical challenge with the consortium concept would also be that determining and enforcing violations and compliance would be more difficult when the 'user' consists of a very large, and constantly changing, number of separate entities.

To add to the 'perfect' digital system, it would have to operate in dedicated spectrum. I have encountered higher education and corporate clients whose internal IT groups or third-party data network operators prohibit anything on their campuses operating in the 2.4GHz spectrum other than their wireless data networks. I can understand this, if you wanted me to be responsible for providing reliable, high quality wireless networking on your campus then one of the first things I would probably ask for is for you to prohibit other uses of that spectrum. Regardless of the actual potential for problems, where such edicts exist they effectively eliminate wireless 2.4GHz wireless mics from consideration.


----------

