Spectrum Auction Raises $19.6 Billion, but What Happens to the Wireless Microphones in the Bands that were Just Auctioned?

Sasch,

Thourghly a nonissue. Wireless mics operate at such low power that even a person walking past the 'catcher' at a concert can mute the mic. In an enviornment rife with EMI in that mic frequency the unit will be nonfunctional. Anyone getting interference from the mic would have to be standing on stage to be affected. Not only that but the mic makers are already aware of the issue and have other frequencies to move to and have the rf modules already built to do so.

The only people who are going to be pissed are the stage hands who find out their mics don't work hours before the event with no appropriate replacements.

Hi JohnMc,

I agree that to the larger populace, this isn't going to be a problem; but for all the organizations currently using mics in these prohibited bands, they're going to have to spend the money to get new equipment. What's egregious is that equipment is still being sold today that operates in these prohibited bands -- in essence, manufacturers are selling a product they know to be defective to an unsuspecting populace.

As the founder of a performance venue, I know that I'd be pissed if someone sold me a bill of goods. For anyone using wireless audio equipment, they need to make sure that their systems aren't operating in channels 52 and higher (basically anything above 698 MHz). Of course, the giant gorilla in the middle of the room is the fact that most venues are using wireless microphones illegally (either knowingly or inadvertently) and don't have any rights whatsoever.

Well, both of you are completely wrong . . . and quite correct.

While the FCC has so far made no NPRM or R&O stating Part 74 devices must vacate the 698-806MHz spectrum, they did make two declaratory statements addressing this issue back in 1997 (Paragraph 14, 2nd sentence) and 1998  essentially stating those operations must cease once spectrum is re-allocated. More to the point however, I believe given the multi-billon dollar expenditures by the respective auction winners, those entities will petition the FCC to forbid any secondary services in "their" spectrum. Further, there'll likely be a similar request (demand) from APCO and other public safety organizations to forbid any Part 74 operations in any PS spectrum (for obvious reasons).

Now, concerning continued use of Part 74 devices (not just wireless mics, but wireless intercom, in ear monitors and interruptible foldback - IFB), the professional entertainment industry and most larger houses of worship with extensive production capabilities are well aware of the spectrum re-allocation, the DTV transition and the last 700MHz auction: There are nearly 12,000 comments filed concerning OET docket 04-186, many of those by entertainment production trade organizations, entertainment production companies, individual professionals, houses of worship, producers, venues.  Professional audio and audio/visual companies, when buying new gear, are buying equipment in bandsplits below 698MHz. Those that are not yet buying new, will use their existing inventories until 700MHz buildout in their operational markets make use of devices >698MHz too questionable (and compromise the production value of the event you just paid a lot of money to attend). Additionally, the professional level Part 74 manufacturers are in fact discontinuing their bandsplits above 698MHz, although some retail outlets (where professional production companies do not buy their gear) may still have inventory. "Weekend warrior" garage sound companies and amateur bar bands may not be aware of of the spectrum change, and the retail outlets where they do buy their gear may not know, or not informing the customer in order to sell out remaining inventory, is a different situation; as with most industries, the professionals keep abreast of the regulatory and legal issues while the amateur or retail consumer does not.

Lastly, as it seems to be the elephant in the room, is the issue of widespread illegal use of Part 74 devices. No question this is a problem and must be addressed. I don't have the answer, but maybe the whitespace coalition does;  "We recognize, however, that some wireless microphone operations that are currently unauthorized are nevertheless in the public interest. As a further part of our effort to find an acceptable compromise in this proceeding, the Coalition therefore proposes that the Commission address the issue of substantial illegal wireless microphone use in the TV bands by enlarging the Part 74 authorization for wireless microphones. It should include churches, Broadway, and other organizations for which the Commission determines the use of wireless microphones is in the public interest", but then Sascha knew that.

Henry -- great comments! You may also be quite interested in the wireless microphone complaint that is in the process of being filed by the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition. The complaint focuses on the wireless mic hardware manufacturers (not the users) and documents the wide-spread industry practice of both selling and advertising illegal equipment. It will be quite interesting to see how they respond to the fact that they've been actively and explicitly supporting the breaking of the law as an integral part of their business practices.

I've not heard of this complaint; do you have a link or docket number?

From your description, I doubt they have much grounds: FCC rules only mandate that equipment for sale must be certified, verified or type approved, and that users must have a license (if a licensed service). There is nothing in the CFRor USC that addresses manufacturers and dealers are permitted to sell product only to eligible users.

Sort of analogous to car: You don't need a drivers license to purchase or own it; only operate it. The dealer is under no obligation to check you driver's license to sell you the vehicle, provided you bring someone else to drive it away or a flatbed to haul it.