Print

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

[Mark Simpson]

Funny you said that.. "Panties in a bunch" was 'exactly' how I looked at the cops/prosecutors/judges and jury (all rolled into one) that  over reacted to my question in the first place...

Just because you see how the whole situation went down differently than I do, doesn't mean I am wrong and you are right.. it just means you see it differently... I chalk that up to your not being on the receiving end of it.. If you were, you just might have a different perspective... just maybe...

I really don't know much about wirelesses since I don't own any 'myself'.. and this was why I was naive enough to have asked the question in the first place, unwittingly walking into a pet peeve trap of several here...

So now you're telling me that if you use 'any' wireless, you have to pay an annual license fee? I'd never heard of this...

All I know about wireless is that in my old church we had serious issues with interference on the shures, being down the street from a police station, and across the street from a cell repeater station..

We sold them and bought all new lectrosonics units (pricey) after renting a half dozen of them for a big production, and all our problems went away... awesome products, but you pay for it...

So tell me about this "licensing" requirement.. So I can inform the powers that be about it.. Heck, for all I know they are already in compliance...

As far as the way these threads went, I did not seek to turn these threads into something other than they were originally intended.. but I am still learning to turn the other cheek.. of course those who did the slapping in the first place are still in denial.. I can do nothing about that.. and I understand that they just may not see that it indeed happened..

In the end, I hold no grudges.. was just making my case, and yet again foolishly trying to defend myself, which 'never' works... because those whom I am talking to are spinning the situation to also defend themselves.. and that too is understandable.. Can't say I've never done that myself...

All I was looking for was acknowledgment and apology, then to move on... nothing more...

Two people apologized to me, and I appreciate that gesture, even if they do not acknowledge or accept that they did any wrong... I'm not saying they do/did or not... either way, I appreciate the gesture...

But frankly, there are those who have decided to 'pile on' after the fact, when I am having a 'real' hard time trying to figure out what they stand to gain from digging the hatchet back up after those involved tried to bury it....

Robert and Lee, I appreciate your attempts to make peace... To the rest, who seem bent on throwing their two cents into our attempts at resolving this.. why? What dog do you have in this fight?

[Lee Buckalew]

Quote:

Again, I am not stupid.. The references to "Pleading poverty is not an option " and "too many people that think this will not apply to them because they live far out in rural areas where there are no tv stations" the day after a thread blew up because I took issue with someone insinuating my church being immoral and hypocritical because my church was teaching morality and simultaneously 'breaking the law' (asking me if I was okay with this situation is about as direct a proof you can get as it being directed to me)... and in this thread I explained that we were experiencing some severe hard times, and lived in a rural area too far out to receive TV stations... and you expect me to believe that the poster I called out on this just happened to pick all these scenarios out of the blue?

Mark,
You took personally what was not meant that way.  Every church out there has made the financial statement/asked the question that you did.  Many have also commented that they are far away from anything that they could imagine interfering with.  Odd's are they will be interfered with rather than interfering with someone else.  

As far as

Quote:

someone insinuating my church being immoral and hypocritical because my church was teaching morality and simultaneously 'breaking the law' (asking me if I was okay with this situation is about as direct a proof you can get as it being directed to me)...

The exact quote was

Quote:

Given where you are you may not have anyone monitoring, at least not often, but the other side of this is that it is against federal law to use those frequencies after June 12th, 2010. If you and your church are comfortable breaking the law while teaching morality that's up to you.

I never said you or your church were being (present tense) immoral.  It was not an accusation or insinuation.  I said that this was going to be a change in Federal Law and that you and/or your church would have to ask yourself the question of being O.K. with a decision (which you had not made yet, as this was clear in your posts) that would make you in violation of that law.  Later you noted that your wireless are not even in the banned range so, you won't even have to consider it.

I ask essentially this same question, straight out, to their faces while they are in the room with me, of every organization, churches included, that asks me about using wireless in the newly banned range after June 12th.  If you (the organization to whom I am speaking, not specifically only you, Mark) choose to use banned devices after June 12th you (again, see previous note) will be breaking the law, are you (previous note again) comfortable with that?  
It's the same type of question that I ask in regard to copyright as well (although the FCC violation, for most churches, would have a far greater legal impact).  I want to be certain that they understand the possible implications so that it is understood with complete clarity since often times the initial response is either a very innocent or very belligerent "what if we just keep using this" without much thought being given as to what that really means.  
Further, another poster started this thread and mentioned something that I also usually mention but had failed to.  That the potential fines and jail time for interfering with the emergency responders within this band, a small but critical part of this band, would be separate from interfering with a standard license holder.  This thread too was taken as somehow a slam against you or your church.  
All of these things have been ongoing discussions with the same group of questions asked for years now.   Emergency responders have the highest signal level capability outside of TV stations.  I know of 30 watt repeater systems but am not sure what the limit is within the emergency responder frequencies in question.  This means that any wireless within about 12 miles of a repeater (police car, fire truck, ambulance, homeland security vehicle, etc.) may be interfered with.  These are all important for wireless users to consider.

The other piece of this is that all unlicensed users (and that is essentially everyone except licensed broadcasters and those in certain film work) including Broadway theatres, national touring artists, Nashville shows, Branson, all primary and secondary school's, colleges and universities, community organizations such as Elks, Kiwanis, Moose and Lyons and every band, bar, etc., anyone using wireless mics as an unlicensed user has absolutely no rights in regard to this band going away or to any band in which they operate.  All of these organizations bought into this technology for which they were Part74 users who had the right to accept any interference and provide none.  That is the legal agreement listed on every wireless system box and/or manual in order to operate the systems.   There will be more changes coming within the next 10 or so years that, at this early stage, seem as though they will have an even greater impact than this change is having.

Please allow these threads to continue without constantly taking a personal affront to the comments so that those who need this knowledge do not feel afraid to check or merely give up because they find it a waste of time to try to find the bits of good information within the arguing.

Hopefully my post will not cover a bunch of things that have already been said as I have spent some time just rereading it and making little corrections here and there, I am sure there will have been some other responses by the time this posts.

His,
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.

[Mark Simpson]

Lee Buckalew wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 18:33

Please allow these threads to continue without constantly taking a personal affront to the comments so that those who need this knowledge do not feel afraid to check or merely give up because they find it a waste of time to try to find the bits of good information within the arguing.

The basic problem here is that

a) After everyone says okay, let's stop and bury the hatchet, someone else comes slong and can't resist the urge to fire a shot across the bow..

and b) once they do, I seem unable to just bite my tongue and take it...

So let me say this instead.. I have no desire to continue this he said she said BS.. I accept the apologies that have been given, and I apologize for responding to the the shots across the bow.. and for distracting from the intended message...

So I will put out a plea to 'let it go' and I will do my best to do the same..

Whether we agree on what was said or intended in these discussion is no longer even the point... I think pretty much all that can be said, has been...

Let's let sleeping dogs lie and move on... Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God..

So you're saying then that there is no 'licensing' requirement we have to worry about? I don't want to be a 'squatter'....

[Lee Buckalew]

The licensing issue is, in very brief, something that was never a possibility for UHF wireless systems users who were not holders of FCC broadcast licenses for specific businesses or functions.
All churches and most wireless users who are not in the category of NBC, ABC, etc. or a motion picture company are in the category called Part74.  This means they have a maximum transmitter power limited to 50 milliwatts even though the systems may be capable of 250 milliwatts.  Further they must provide no interference and must accept any interference.

There is another side to the frequency change which is the upcoming introduction of TVBD's (Television Band Devices).  These can be thought of as a sort of cell type device (limited range on the cellular model) that will operate in the lower 2/3 of the UHF band that we still have left for UHF mic operation.  These devices will function in a similar manner to Wi-Fi in that they hunt for available channels and don't always stay on the same one.  This could mean that you might fire up a wireless and use it with no problems for an 8:00am Sunday rehearsal but, after some congregants arrive and one happens to have a TVBD you now have a problem.
If you are a Part74 user, it is my understanding, that you are not allowed to interfere with that TVBD.  If, on the other hand, you are a licensed user you can participate in a new geolocation database and register the TV channels in which you you intend to operate, on what days and at what times.  This database must be checked by each TVBD every 24 hours or when the TVBD changes geographic regions (the TVBD has to receive data from this database before it can transmit).
The FCC is considering allowing some other users to be licensed or in some manner participate in the geolocation database.  It has not decided what organizations this will be but they are certain it will not be all current users.  They were taking public comments about two months ago regarding how they might make that determination.  Some said # of seats, others size, etc.  It is also not decided as far as I know, if venues that get traveling shows if the show can register in the database or if the venue can or both.  

There is a lot going on with all things wireless.  Check out the various manufacturers websites.  Do a few searches here on Pro Sound Web and then keep asking questions.

Henry Cohen, a frequent contributor here, is one of the very best resources in the country.  Do a search for his posts and there should be a wealth of information.
If I have made any errors herein I am sure he will correct and set me straight.

His,
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.

[Lee Buckalew]

For VHF Henry (or someone else) will have to weigh in on the licensing question.

There was a requirement but, no major manufacturers that I am aware of still produce VHF mics and only one I know of produce intercom in that range.

I don't think that there is still a license requirement but I could be wrong.

His,
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.

[Mark Simpson]

Well, thus far, we have no issues at all in any of what you said.. Then again, the nearest cell repeater is over 30 miles away, and TV transmitter close to 3 times that...

I just want to to feel secure that uncle nasty isn't going to put the beat down us for just using our little purchased used 5 or 10 year old lav mic...

We're all of 25 people strong and not looking to take over the airwaves...

[Lee Buckalew]

Not cell repeater,  
Most/many police cars, fire trucks, etc. have higher power repeaters in them for their UHF radios.  These may be 30 watts, don't know if they can be higher.  I have seen 30 watt units in the 800MHz range but don't know if this will carry down into the middle of the 700MHz range.

This means that these units could interfere with certain ranges within the UHF band from relatively great distances and these repeaters are mobil so you can't ever count on where they are.

None of this will effect your VHF mics.

His,
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.

[Jonathan Johnson]

Another thread that has become unproductive.

When the moderator shuts it down, that is NOT your signal to continue the bickering in another thread!

Shame on you! All of you!

[Mark Simpson]

Jonathan Johnson wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 20:02

Another thread that has become unproductive. When the moderator shuts it down, that is NOT your signal to continue the bickering in another thread! Shame on you! All of you!

See what I mean? This is case in point..

Amends have been made, the dog is sleeping again, and the discussion is back on topic.. Then here comes yet 'another' uninvolved party who just can't resist the temptation to wake up the dog in an attempt to stir it all up again...

Tell me Johnathan, what did you hope to accomplish by putting your two cents in and wagging your self righteous finger at everyone? Wasn't it good enough that it was all over and quiet again?

What was necessary or needed in your reply? What good could 'possibly' come from it?

There is a concept called "Addition by subtraction" that all sound geeks should be familiar with.. Think about it...

[Mark Simpson]

You ever see cops or some similar show, where there is a fight between two guys, and the cops have busted it all up and everybody is finally calming down, and then the sister or girlfriend of one of the participants, using incredible good judgment, just runs up and pops the other guy in the mouth?

Next thing you know it's all chaos again, and then she's the one that gets arrested.

[ProSoundWeb Community]