Dan Ostroff Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Some additional feedback given to the FCC regarding the impacts of the spectrum auction in the 600mhz block... And Sennheiser Electronic Corporation, a wireless mic manufacturer, is drawing support for its proposal for the cost of replacing wireless mics to fall to companies that win spectrum in the incentive auction. FCC staff members have recommended auctioning the two channels currently reserved for wireless mics, and a senior FCC official said the staff is also proposing allowing licensed use of wireless microphones by broadcasters in the duplex gap. “I fully agree with Sennheiser's proposal for auction winners to compensate wireless mic owners for any equipment that they will not be able to use after spectrum repacking,” said a filing by John Ratzlaff, technical director at Eagan High School in Eagan, MInn., which uses 110 wireless mics in classrooms, gyms, lunchrooms, and an auditorium, 36 of which use 600 MHz band spectrum. “The cost to replace the equipment at EHS alone would total more than $50,000. As you can expect, we as a high school, do not have that kind of money to cover the replacement of these mics. The mics are crucial to both teach our students and to support our productions. Please require the purchasers of the spectrum to reimburse those of us who have spent a lot of money already on microphones that we will not be able to use. We have already had to pay out of pocket to replace the 20 mics that were rendered useless when the 700mhz spectrum was already auctioned off.” Shad Groverland, sound supervisor for MGM Resorts International, also endorsed the Sennheiser proposal. “After we lost the 700MHz range it was a very large financial impact to the corporation as well as lost time replacing inventory with new mics in the 600MHz range,” Mr. Groverland said in a filing. “To be forced to do this all again in such a short period of time and after such extensive losses and re-investments, only to be lost again… well it is simply not fair or financially responsible.” Shad Groverland's Full Response- http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521098414 John Ratzlaff's Full Response- http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view;jsessionid=pvkhTWzMmmCsFCYGl21TwJLGCLdQWFDjqs8W76qjtJkGnLWV15vk!1675925370!1281169505?id=7521098668 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 we are discussing this in another thread..."600 MHz RF Band going away..." notice (John Ratzlaff): " Eagan High School in Eagan, MInn., which uses 110 wireless mics " we production sound folks are not the "power users"! Many, many others are facing the issues we are unhappy about, and many in a larger way! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al mcguire Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 >we are discussing this in another thread... how about a link to that discussion, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 you can find it, Al... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 yin and yang... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Ostroff Posted April 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 we are discussing this in another thread..."600 MHz RF Band going away..." notice (John Ratzlaff): " Eagan High School in Eagan, MInn., which uses 110 wireless mics " we production sound folks are not the "power users"! Many, many others are facing the issues we are unhappy about, and many in a larger way! I don't see an issue starting a new thread with a current update. And although this posting refers to Sennheiser's petition, this post highlights individual users responses directly to the FCC with regards to the impacts of the spectrum auction. Not everyone is up on every on-going thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 of course it is not an issue, the information and discussion are much better when spread out over multiple threads... --sent from one of my personal computing devices, using a web browsing program can you tell which ones ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 we are discussing this in another thread..."600 MHz RF Band going away..." You mean the thread where your first post pointed to another thread about this topic before you alone decided that it was "the" thread? Thank you for the update Dan. Interesting reads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 we: " You mean the thread where your first post pointed to another thread about this topic before you alone decided that it was "the" thread? " nope, not that one, another one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 we: " You mean the thread where your first post pointed to another thread about this topic before you alone decided that it was "the" thread? " nope, not that one, another one. Your post (#2) from that thread: "another thread is all over this..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 nope, not that one, another one... sent from one of my computing devices, using a web browsing program... can you tell which ones ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 nope, not that one, another one... sent from one of my computing devices, using a web browsing program... can you tell which ones ? Then you got the title wrong. Good thing you post links to the threads you reference so we know which ones you are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Ostroff Posted April 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 FCC / Spectrum update - April 28, 2014 - FCC SHOULD RESERVE DUPLEX GAP FOR WIRELSS MICS, NAB SAYS The FCC should reserve the 600 megahertz band duplex gap for wireless microphones, according to the National Association of Broadcasters. The trade group’s push comes as FCC staff has recommended auctioning the two 600 MHz band channels currently reserved for wireless mics. However, staff has recommended allowing licensed use of mics used by broadcasters in the duplex gap, which would share the spectrum with unlicensed devices. In an ex parte filing today in GN docket 12-268 reporting on meetings with FCC officials, NAB said that the Commission should consider continuing to reserve two channels for wireless mic use. “While NAB continues to believe that the ability to squeeze more and more broadcasters together should not trump all other values implicated by the incentive auction, in the continued spirit of looking for solutions to identified problems, NAB has offered a ‘Plan B’ to address the problem. Rather than continuing to reserve the two channels, the FCC could simply designate the duplex gap that will be created in the new 600 MHz wireless band plan as exclusive for wireless microphones,” the group said. “In order for this plan to work, however, the duplex gap must be at least 10 megahertz. This should not be an issue, as not a single party has suggested in the record that the duplex gap can feasibly be any less than 10 megahertz. The draft order, however, includes potential band plans with a duplex gap as little as 6 megahertz wide, which would render it unusable for any service. If the Commission wants to avoid having to reserve two channels for exclusive wireless microphone use in every market, it must rework the proposed band plan to include at least a 10 megahertz duplex gap, and then reserve it for wireless microphone use only. At the end of the day, NAB believes that 4-5 megahertz of a 10 megahertz duplex gap will be useable for wireless mics.” NAB added, “This solution is elegant, as it is a strong compromise among many competing interests. The wireless carriers and chip and handset makers will support it because it will help avoid impairing the high end of the downlink and low end of the uplink. In addition, if some service must go into the duplex gap, wireless mics are a far better neighbor from an interference perspective than unlicensed devices. While Google and Microsoft will lament not having access to the duplex gap, they still walk away will new nationwide spectrum that covers major markets. Moreover, in relation to the draft order, they don’t lose anything, as a 6 megahertz duplex gap offers them no ability to offer meaningful services.” But Michael Calebrese, director of the Wireless Future Project at the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute, blasted NAB’s proposal. “The Public Interest Spectrum Coalition strongly supports the NAB’s position that the FCC should continue to reserve two vacant broadcast channels for priority use by licensed wireless microphones. These channels could be designated post-auction in each market and therefore would not in any way reduce the Commission’s flexibility during the auction,” Mr. Calabrese said. “However, we also believe that NAB’s alternative proposal allowing mics to make reservations that block unlicensed use of the duplex gap that will separate LTE uplink and downlink bands would be a death sentence for unlicensed broadband and innovation post-auction,” he said. “Congress clearly intended that the FCC authorize unlicensed use of the duplex gap. In addition, the TV Bands Database would allow unlicensed devices to share any channels set aside for mics and protect them from interference in the 90 percent of the places and times those channels are not in use.” In its ex parte filing, NAB also reiterated its concern with the Office of Engineering and Technology’s plan to use new TVStudy software to implement OET-69, which is used to measure TV interference. “Given that there is little or no practical reason or justification for making changes to OET-69, that Congress expressly directed the Commission to use it as is and the major procedural defects in the manner in which these changes have been proposed, the Commission should take this opportunity to shelve TV Study,” the filing said. “The staff’s time and effort is better spent on completing the repacking model, which has been under construction for at least four years. OET-69 is fully capable of producing accurate inputs into the long-anticipated repacking model, and thus the Commission should set aside this distraction before it becomes a threat to the auction.” And NAB urged the FCC “to include in the item a mechanism that treats the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund as a budget, and not a mere open-ended half-measure. The auction should not move forward unless the staff first determines its repacking headroom under the $1.75 billion budget and takes every step it can to minimize repacking in the context of a successful incentive auction.” Meanwhile, the Expanding Opportunities for Broadcasters Coalition said in an ex parte filing today reporting on a meeting with Commissioner Mike O’Rielly and aides that the FCC should not use any “adjustment factors” to consider the enterprise value of TV stations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted May 7, 2014 Report Share Posted May 7, 2014 I don't think it is as useful to have a new thread for every new article being found, but rather a single thread covering this clearly ongoing topic... another article with good information: http://www.audiomedia.com/broadcast/0003/fcc-moves-may-dim-wireless-mics’-future-/1083 while there is still a lot of time, a couple of points included: questions remain as to the accommodations that the FCC might extend to wireless audio equipment operators.Earlier this year, the DTV Audio Group announced that it had established a working group to promote discussions with the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology to identify what frequency spectrum will be made available to wireless mic users in the long term. The working group includes broadcast network partners, frequency coordinators and end-users, and wireless microphone manufacturers and service providers including Broadcast Sports, Inc. (BSI), CP Communications, Broad Comm, Frequency Coordination Group, Audio-Technica, Lectrosonics, Sennheiser, and Shure. - See more at: http://www.audiomedia.com/broadcast/0003/fcc-moves-may-dim-wireless-mics%E2%80%99-future-/1083#sthash.Pf2jyJM8.dpuf and we may be getting back TV ch 37 (currently reserved for radio astronomy) The draft R&O proposes making the 600 MHz guard bands—between the paired 5MHz uplink/downlink blocks that will be created—and channel 37—currently used for radio astronomy and medical telemetry—available for use nationwide by any unlicensed devices, not just wireless microphones. - See more at: http://www.audiomedia.com/broadcast/0003/fcc-moves-may-dim-wireless-mics%E2%80%99-future-/1083#sthash.Pf2jyJM8.dpuf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Gilchrist Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 Senator, are you willing to coordinate all future threads on this topic? Please provide an email address and phone number so posters can submit their posts on this topic. Please be willing to turn all posts around in a reasonable (within one hour?) time frame. Put up or shut up. Best regards, Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 no need, just need one thread... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Gilchrist Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 no need, just need one thread... Who will coordinate that one thread? Your post belongs or it's out? Please provide an email address and phone number so posters can submit their posts on this topic. Please be willing to turn all posts around in a reasonable (within one hour?) time frame. Put up or shut up. Best regards, Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 no need to coordinate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Gilchrist Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 no need to coordinate Actually, you've advocated that nonstop. Best regards, Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 - from Jay Patterson (who has probably done more for all of us on this issue) On May 15th, the FCC will vote on Internet Neutrality, and an incentive auction of the “600 MHz” band of the RF spectrum, to the broadband wireless industry. Despite vociferous objection from the NAB, wireless mic manufacturers, wireless mic users, Low Power TV Stations and repeater services, it is expected that the FCC will service the desires of the mega-carriers and vote to remove the 700 MHz band from public, licensed use. If passed, the incentive auction will remove Lectro blocks 24, 25, 26, and half of 23 from our use. Even Channel 37, reserved for half a century for radio-telescopy may go away. Despite a very articulate brief filed by Shure, that asked the FCC to compensate professional equipment users for the cost of moving their equipment out of the 700 MHz band, it is doubtful that this will happen. Many of the briefs filed by the mega-carriers actually call for a freeze on new Part 74 Licenses! That’s us……. THE ONLY WIRELESS MICROPHONE USERS WHO WILL BE ABLE TO CLAIM THEY ARE BEING HARMED ARE LICENSE HOLDERS. OUR VOICE IS WEAK BECAUSE ONLY A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF PROFESSIONAL WIRELESS MICROPHONE USERS HOLD LICENSES. I strongly urge any entertainment professional who turns a transmitter on as part of your daily work, to get a license, and to get it now… http://www.695.com/fcc If you wish to read the briefs and ex parte comments on file with the FCC on the incentive auction: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=08-167 click on the “View” link to read each one. If you do not hold a license, apply for one immediately. If you do hold a license, or have an application pending, please submit an email to: part74pro@ymail.com and state your name, call letters (or the words ‘license pending’), your location, and your Local Union affiliation (if affiliated). This email address will be used to keep you informed of late breaking developments, and will solicit your support in communications with the FCC. GET YOUR LICENSE NOW, AND SPREAD THE WORD. Respectfully yours, Jay Patterson, CAS Chairman, IATSE Local 695 Technical Trends Committee/FCC Project Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 ...now, about the "multiple threads" issue, I don't know what can be done. I do know that the sooner we stop TALKING about the multiple threads we can concentrate on the ISSUE (which is much more important than how people conduct themselves on this site). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 I find it unnerving that major telecom is asking to hold on part 74 licenses. Although i don't know their reasoning, it seems like a deliberate attack on a small group of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Gilchrist Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 We should bear in mind that the current chair of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, is a former cable television lobbyist and past president of the National Cable Television Association. In the past that group represented groups outside the reach of broadcast television. Now nearly all cable providers supply internet service or wireless phones if not both sevices. His constituency has little interest in our main concern (the increased need for dedicated space for wireless microphones) that seem to be a key element of the programing his former constituency now dictates. Ironic, huh? Best regards, Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhyOne Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Serves me right for not spending enough time here. First. We will probably lose 600 MHz. Not without a fight, though. To view the official debates: http://apps.fcc.gov/...oceeding=08-167 click on the 08-167 for the list. Kudos to Shure for footing the bill on legal.. For the future, we need to band together as the professional film and television professionals who make their living using wireless mics. If you have a license, or have applied, please submit an email with your name, call letters (or the words 'application pending', your location, and union affiliation, if affiliated, to: part74pro@yahoo.com tell your friends. Jay Patterson, CAS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 here is how it works at the FCC, and specifically with the spectrum auction: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/20/corruption-at-the-fcc-tv-execs-donate-to-dem-lawmaker-get-million-dollar-rule-exception/?advD=1248,203848 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.