2008 National Conference for Media Reform Panel: Spectrum 2.0: Using Public Airwaves to Build the Future of the Internet.

So I watched the video, with particular interest in Ms. Corbett's remarks. At approximately 52:25 in the video she begins to discuss the marketing practices by wireless microphone manufacturers of "illegal devices" and that manufacturers are in violation of Part 74 rules. First, I will preface I am not an attorney. Second, my questions are honest ones (as opposed to simply being argumentative) as I fail to understand a couple of points. Thus, if you, or hopefully Ms. Corbett could explain these points, It would help me understand the legal and poilitcal side of this issue (remember, I'm just one of those 'techies' who don't really get the beltway):

1) Ms. Corbett on several occasions stated that the wireless mics were illegal devices. She did say at the end of her presentation "illegal use", but that's not what I'm questioning (I fully agree 98% of their use is illegal); rather what makes the device itself illegal? All the devices in question sold have FCC type approval, a valid FCC ID number and meet the applicable requirements of 47CFR Part 2.

2) I've read 47CFR 2.803 and no where does it explicity or implicitly state a manufacturer of a type approved or certified device is not permitted to market, offer for sale or sell such device to a given class of customer (in this case a user not eligible for a license under Part 74). 2.803 only discusses the marketing and selling of non-type approved or non-certified devices. Exactly what regulation are Part 74 device manufacturers allegedly violating, and if not on point, could someone explain the interpretation?

My only other comment, being the engineer I am, is I highly recommend that Mr. Bowen performs some propagation studies (using the proposed power levels and varying weather conditions) relative to his needs in the 512-698MHz spectrum before he determines this spectrum is the answer to his RF coverage and delivery shortcomings. And let's not forget that although 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz have many propagation limitations and tremendous congestion, we are talking 20-40MHz wide backhaul channels versus 6MHz, maybe 12MHz in some rural locations, for UHF.

Henry Cohen

I think Maura may have blurred the distinction between illegal devices and use, but she was referring to the marketing practices of the manufacturers -- selling their hardware to illegal users of Part 74 devices, rather than the devices themselves. The devices are legal, but the users of those devices are not. Unfortunately, the manufacturers of many wireless microphone devices have consistently engaged in marketing practices to groups who cannot legally use wireless microphones (e.g., theaters, Broadway, churches, etc.).

In terms of Part 74 and who is eligible, you want to look at "Subpart H -- Low Power Auxilliary Stations" and, in particular, Section "74.832 Licensing requirements and procedures" which states:

(a)A license authorizing operation of one or more low power auxiliary stations will be issued only to the following:
(1) A licensee of an AM, FM, TV, or International broadcast station or low power TV station. Low power auxiliary stations will be licensed for used [sic] with a specific broadcast or low power TV station or combination of stations licensed to the same licensee within the same community.
(2) A broadcast network entity.
(3) A cable television system operator who operates a cable system that produces program material for origination or access cablecasting.
(4) Motion picture producers.
(5) Television program producers.
(6)Licensees and conditional licensees of stations in the Service and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service, or entities that hold an executed lease agreement with an MDS or MMDS licensee or conditional licensee or with an Instructional Television Fixed Service licensee or permittee.

The question is one of negligence more than engineering -- by actively marketing equipment to users who are clearly illegal according to the Part 74 rules, wireless manufacturers have created tens of thousands of pirate broadcasters. Since this mess will need to be cleaned up, the question is, should the users of these devices bear the cost alone, or are the manufacturers who marketed equipment that it was illegal for these customers to actually use help pay for the costs?

I think I do a good job of setting up the question about who should be held responsible (starting about minute 52), but I'd be quite interested in your take on this.

zuhztroc http://rkiirrlb.com ripontct sblftowe [URL=http://eqywmmzw.com]mzkzsvrz[/URL] akiegred