Print

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

[Keith Broughton]

From another POV, remember that it's not all about us and the problems we might have from operating in illegal bands.
This equipment can negatively affect other wireless devices that are legally using the frequencies that telcoms have purchased.

[Debbie Dunkley]

From another POV, remember that it's not all about us and the problems we might have from operating in illegal bands.
This equipment can negatively affect other wireless devices that are legally using the frequencies that telcoms have purchased.

My fear would be being responsible for blocking an emergency broadcast resulting in something very bad.....

[Keith Broughton]

I had a chat with a tech that works on Rogers telcom towers here in Canada about the detection of unwanted wireless mic transmissions.
He claims we can be detected as far as 2 KM away!
Not sure how accurate that is but something to consider.

As for the OP, I just tell the user they are operating in an illegal frequency and leave it at that.

[Tim McCulloch]

From another POV, remember that it's not all about us and the problems we might have from operating in illegal bands.
This equipment can negatively affect other wireless devices that are legally using the frequencies that telcoms have purchased.

Not in dispute, Keith.  The question is about what a venue or vendor tech du jour should do about it.

I'm sympathetic to the ATTs, Rogers, TMobiles customers of the world when someone illegally uses their licensed spectrum, but I'm not an FCC agent and sure not wanting to confront a performer when it's not my job.

[Scott Helmke]

but I'm not an FCC agent and sure not wanting to confront a performer when it's not my job.

Depends on what you exact job is, but if you're the designated RF coordinator then it is your job.  Sort of. I've found that what works best is that you're always trying to solve problems, rather than being an enforcer.

"Using that might cause problems during your performance and I can't help you other than to help find an alternative".  Oftentimes that kind of stuff shows up with people who usually work on a much smaller scale.

[Henry Cohen]

The question of the level of legal responsibility for illegal transmission was reviewed by Henry Cohen here in the Wireless and Coms forum "a couple years ago", IIRC.  Henry may wish to re-address the topic.

From a strictly legal perspective (and a reminder to all I have an EE degree, not a JD, nor did I play one on TV), whereas you can't act on behalf of FCC and enforce code, the matter of property rights comes into play, at least in the US. If you are an authorized representative of the property owner, lessee or renter, you can decline to permit illegal or other activity that violates statute on the property. This option should of course be discussed and a policy established a head of time with management so you can claim to be merely the messenger and to take up any objections with management.

The above said, the FCC has been going after landlords of those tenants running pirate radio & TV stations and has stated landlords can be libel for any code violation activity on their property. I'm also certain that any venue rental or lease contract has a clause stating no activity that violates criminal or civil law or statute can be conducted under the renter or lessee's term, followed by the indemnification clause. Not permitting use in forbidden bands is simply CYA or that of management's.

I do like Erik's perspective, but that's only relevant when it's a band plugging into a PA. My onsite work these days is pretty much dealing with broadcasters and ENG; they will only hurt themselves if they land in a downlink. Our clients usually opt to take the property rights route. Upon finding an illegal transmitter, we explain the situation to the user and direct them to the onsite AV or PA provider for an XLR cable or rental kit, or they have the option of having their credentials revoked if they don't care for the first two.

[Keith Broughton]

Thanks for the info Henry. The property rights issue is most interesting. I'm curious how that plays out in Canada.

[Ike Zimbel]

Thanks for the info Henry. The property rights issue is most interesting. I'm curious how that plays out in Canada.

I can't speak to property rights, but from a spectrum angle there are a number of things that are different up here from how they are in the States.
For starters, of the 112 cellular blocks that were auctioned across the country, only 8 didn't sell and are still the "property" of ISED (the Canadian equivalent to the FCC)https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/spectrum-management-telecommunications/en/spectrum-allocation/auctions/auction-spectrum-licences-600-mhz-band/600-mhz-auction-final-results. I'm sure Henry will correct me if I'm wrong here but it's my impression that, in the US, while the entire 614-698 MHz spectrum was cleared of DTV broadcasts, not all of it sold, so there may be chunks of spectrum, even in major markets, that are unoccupied. While I have not done a cross-country tour since these changes took effect in Canada, so far, everywhere I have been, all seven down-link blocks (A-G) have been occupied. The "downlink" is the signal from the cell towers, and looks like a 5MHz DTV channel on a SA. In practical terms, what this means is that if someone shows up at a gig with, say, a "B" band Sennheiser kit (626-698 MHz), anything they tune to in 626-652MHz is going to get crushed by the downlink. By the same token, if they do a scan with the receiver it's highly unlikely that the RX is going to find anything in that range that it can use. So, that leaves the Duplex Gap (652-663 MHz), which is fine, and then a big "Gotcha!". Which is...when you do a scan, the RX is probably going to find LOTS of open frequencies in 663-698MHz, BUT, that spectrum is the "uplink" from the cell phones so it will look plenty clear first thing in the morning, but will turn to sh*t when the punters show up with their phones. So, in answer to the o/p, the safest thing to do (but I'm not a lawyer) is direct anyone using this equipment to use 657-663 MHz. This is the un-licensed portion of the Duplex Gap in the US (and sorta' in Canada) and also happens to have exactly 1 MHz of usable spectrum if the person happens to have a Shure ULXP system in the M1 band, which starts at 662.025MHz.

[Keith Broughton]

I was unaware of the duplex gap, 652-663.
Thanks Ike!

[Scott Helmke]

I was unaware of the duplex gap, 652-663.
Thanks Ike!

I believe it's actually 653-663, and as Ike mentioned only part of that is legal for unlicensed users.

The duplex gap is kind of a weird beast legally, though. To do things the right way your gear should only be able to tune within that space and any other legal space, but there's a lot of stuff left over from the old days which can tune a wider range and is therefore no longer FCC approved for use.

In our rental inventory we've got some Shure PSM-1000 and ULX-D which we (firmware) updated to be permanently limited to that specific frequency range. Some of our power users complained about that (because they can usually get an STA for events), but the bulk of our users aren't and just need a few more channels that can still be used in the big city.

[ProSoundWeb Community]