Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Robert Lunceford]

Do you allow a band that brings in their own wireless equipment (microphones, IEM, etc) that use frequencies that have been banned by the FCC to be used?
If the FCC were to catch this, would they fine the band (actual owner of the equipment), the sound company (that allows the banned equipment to be interfaced with their equipment), the venue, or everyone involved?

[Bill McIntosh]

Do you allow a band that brings in their own wireless equipment (microphones, IEM, etc) that use frequencies that have been banned by the FCC to be used?
If the FCC were to catch this, would they fine the band (actual owner of the equipment), the sound company (that allows the banned equipment to be interfaced with their equipment), the venue, or everyone involved?

Not a lawyer, so I have no legal opinion but a single experience:  A bar band I used to work for had an IEM for the lead singer, that was somewhere in the last batch of sold frequencies.  I warned them that it was no longer legal, got a shrug for a response.  Next gig I went to they had retired the IEM -- told me that it quit working, would only make "weird crackling squealing noises".

The problem may be self-correcting as telecom gear comes online with much higher radiated power.

[brian maddox]

Not a lawyer, so I have no legal opinion but a single experience:  A bar band I used to work for had an IEM for the lead singer, that was somewhere in the last batch of sold frequencies.  I warned them that it was no longer legal, got a shrug for a response.  Next gig I went to they had retired the IEM -- told me that it quit working, would only make "weird crackling squealing noises".

The problem may be self-correcting as telecom gear comes online with much higher radiated power.

A few years ago I got brought into a church to help because nearly all their wireless had just "stopped working". AS I drove into their parking lot I saw that the driveway curved around a structure that was blocked off by shiny new fencing. On getting out of my car it became clear that there was a Cell Phone Tower essentially IN their parking lot. Walked in and of course all their RF was in now illegal frequency bands. I explained the issue and they pushed back saying that the mics had worked for over a year after the "alleged fcc ban" and besides "it's not like they're ever gonna check up on us". I had to point out to them that the big metal thing they drove around every time they came to their building likely had a transmitter on it that had actually been TURNED ON and that they were never going to be able to use those units ever again, regardless of if they were gonna be "caught" or not. They still seemed very baffled that this tower could be connected to their issue...

[Geoff Doane]

A few years ago I got brought into a church to help because nearly all their wireless had just "stopped working". AS I drove into their parking lot I saw that the driveway curved around a structure that was blocked off by shiny new fencing.

I wonder if the church was making rental money off the tower, or was it just outside their property?  That ought to take some of the sting out of having to replace all the wireless. 

GTD

[Pete Erskine]

and besides "it's not like their ever gonna check up on us".

From Jason Glass...

... wireless microphone seller Sound Around ended up with today’s nearly $685,338 FCC fine.   (for selling and using banned Freq wireless)

 The fine was significantly increased due to their repeated, continuous, and more than decade-long marketing of these devices. The FCC requires that wireless devices sold in the United States go through the agency’s equipment authorization process and abide by emissions power and spectrum band requirements.

[Brian Jojade]

One word. No.

[Henry Cohen]

The problem may be self-correcting as telecom gear comes online with much higher radiated power.

This is only applicable if the user is attempting to operate wireless mics in the downlink blocks; the tower TX to the subscriber unit. However, if the wireless mic were to operate in the uplink block (subscriber TX to tower), the spectrum will seem clear to the mic receiver, the wireless mic will likely work fine, but the cell tower will be experiencing interference. That in turn sends a notice to the head end control room, and if the interference (wireless mic operations) persists, the technical folk from the carrier (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.) come looking for the interference. They in turn report any unlicensed users they find to the FCC Enforcement Bureau. (You think a channel of wireless mic is expensive?)

[brian maddox]

This is only applicable if the user is attempting to operate wireless mics in the downlink blocks; the tower TX to the subscriber unit. However, if the wireless mic were to operate in the uplink block (subscriber TX to tower), the spectrum will seem clear to the mic receiver, the wireless mic will likely work fine, but the cell tower will be experiencing interference. That in turn sends a notice to the head end control room, and if the interference (wireless mic operations) persists, the technical folk from the carrier (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.) come looking for the interference. They in turn report any unlicensed users they find to the FCC Enforcement Bureau. (You think a channel of wireless mic is expensive?)

This is such a great point and one I never really thought about before. WE're so conditioned to think of the big bad transmitters stepping on our receivers that we never really consider our puny transmitters stepping on anything of substance. But obviously in the right circumstances they absolutely can.

I know I asked on this very forum a few years ago about operating in the 900MHz band with some Axients and got some great information about how those can step on point to point connections of some very critical communications systems if they aren't properly coordinated with the relevant organizations in the area you're operating. Good lessons to learn and know.

[brian maddox]

From Jason Glass...

... wireless microphone seller Sound Around ended up with today’s nearly $685,338 FCC fine.   (for selling and using banned Freq wireless)

 The fine was significantly increased due to their repeated, continuous, and more than decade-long marketing of these devices. The FCC requires that wireless devices sold in the United States go through the agency’s equipment authorization process and abide by emissions power and spectrum band requirements.

I actually read this whole FCC ruling when Jason posted it. Very interesting reading.

tl;dr - Lawyers are hilarious and the fines should have been higher....

[Ike Zimbel]

This is only applicable if the user is attempting to operate wireless mics in the downlink blocks; the tower TX to the subscriber unit. However, if the wireless mic were to operate in the uplink block (subscriber TX to tower), the spectrum will seem clear to the mic receiver, the wireless mic will likely work fine, but the cell tower will be experiencing interference. That in turn sends a notice to the head end control room, and if the interference (wireless mic operations) persists, the technical folk from the carrier (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.) come looking for the interference. They in turn report any unlicensed users they find to the FCC Enforcement Bureau. (You think a channel of wireless mic is expensive?)

What I tell folks when they use the "who's actually going to come looking for me if I use it?" line is that the regulatory body (FCC / ISED in Canada) probably wont, BUT the people who are paying for the use of that spectrum ARE paying attention, and monitoring, and they WILL. The money thing seems to get their attention.

[ProSoundWeb Community]