My wireless mic, and the $600 it represents, has been taken for public use -- even worse, for private use since the band width has been auctioned off by the FCC to corporations -- and no one has mentioned "just compensation."

do you have a cell phone? If that bandwidth is used for cell service that could be considered "just compensation".

The bandwidth was given for public utility use. Plus look @ it this way: those $600 mic's, the only one who could use them was YOU. You owned the mic's, they were for private use, not public use. ;)

I believe the companies who bid had to also provide the intended use of the bandwidth, that might be on the FCC site. Any entity that didn't have a public reason (TV, internet, communication, etc) use wasn't allowed to bid I believe.

I suppose you could always sell it to someone in a country where 700Mhz wireless mics are still allowed.

Also, haven't you already made your money back using the mic on paying projects?

The American Constitution has been dead for a long time.

hello bob, you out there somewhere? what's the situation down here in oz?

there might be at least one potential buyer ;-)

leslie

Oh, now there's a question.
Best I can find is here:
http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/radcomm/frequency_planning/spps/0004spp.pdf

The final conclusion is "These observations lead to the conclusion that co-channel sharing between wireless microphones, whether used indoors or outdoors, high or low powered, with VHF and UHF analogue and digital television/datacasting services is not feasible."

My own very simplistic understanding is the the new Senny G3 system as sold in this country is using channels that should remain clear. Existing G2 systems should be OK for some time going forward, at leat until the shutdown of the analog transmitters. It's probably not a bad point in time though to start planning to replace old gear. I'm also trying to look into the possibility of using licenced equipment but that is quite expensive and the licences on offer by the ACMA do not fill one with confidence.
The other option could be to switch from FM to spread spectrum however reports I've had from users of Zaxcom systems down here don't fill me with much confidence either and those units are very expensive.

Bob.

thanks bob,

also picked this up off wikipedia:

"Australia

In Australia, operation of wireless microphones of up to 100 mW between 520 MHz and 820 MHz is covered by a class license, allowing any user to operate the devices without obtaining an individual license. The onus, however, is on the user of the wireless microphone to resolve any interference that the use of the microphone may cause to licensed radio communications services. [8]"

so, who's selling what for how much ;-)

leslie

What that Wiki says is very general. As a user and as a seller there are more regulations that you are required to meet.

"Currently, the LIPDs class licence supports the use of low powered wireless microphones (up to 3 mW EIRP) in Australia through specific provisions for wireless audio transmitters in the bands 88 - 108 MHz (item 21 of the class licence), 174 - 230 MHz and 520 - 820 MHz (item 22 of the class licence), and an all

So NO, you cannot operate a 100mW transmitter at any frequency between 520MHz and 820MHz. In fact:

"Higher powered wireless microphones (up to 50 mW) are supported under the ACA’s apparatus licence regime in the bands 174 – 230 MHz and 520 – 820 MHz; for further details see Appendix D."

So to transmit more than 3mW EIRP you must have an apparatus licence. Another restriction is you must not operate within 500KHz of a TV channel.

As for who is selling what, well the G3 kits are around $850 although they do come with a fairly cheap lapel mic. Allow another $450 or so for a better class of microphone. Mates rates are available as always :) Shure seem to be in denial about the problem, I have no idea what if anything Sony are doing.

Note though the G3 kit only comes in the "100" series , no coverage of overseas bands like the G2 500 series and the butt plug xmitter does not supply phantom power. If you want more bells and whistles you need to step up to the 2000 series kit. If you've got deeper pockets then the 5000/5200 series looks very nice as the bodypack xmitters are very small. The latter also use Lemo connectors rather than 3.5mm TRS connectors. Very nice if you've got $5K to spare. I think what I've just said is correct, the problem is that what Sennheiser make globally is not alwyas available in Australia due to our different regulations. Take care buying this kind of kit from overseas.

Bob.

The bandwidth was given for public utility use. Plus look @ it this way: those $600 mic's, the only one who could use them was YOU. You owned the mic's, they were for private use, not public use. ;)

Actually apparently anyone who was using that spectrum which was reserved for TV required a license from the FCC to do it. That is, your use of your wireless mic has been probably been illegal. However, it was an unenforced law, since using the spectrum between the channels violated no law. Wireless mic manufacturers may have been deceptive in letting the public think it was legal. Check out this article.

Until now, the use of wireless microphones required an FCC license. Eligibility was strictly limited to broadcasters and radio, TV, cable, and movie production, and a few other groups. All other users – music venues, Broadway shows, churches, garage bands – have been operating illegally. These folks are supposed to use non-TV frequencies, but the TV-band microphones work better, and so are by far the most popular. Even so, the unlicensed use of wireless microphones caused no trouble, so the FCC left things alone.

Apparently, the new law includes two things
1. Equipment manufacturers and resellers have to be more explicit that the equipment may be illegal for the consumer to operate.
2. Amnesty for all unlicensed users of wireless microphones, if they operate under 50 milliwatts

The widespread use of non-licensed microphones puts the FCC in a bit of a predicament. The Commission would take far too much heat if it started confiscating unauthorized devices and shutting down Broadway and Sunday Mass, to say nothing of your kid’s school play. Rather than investigate and prosecute ineligible users, the FCC decided instead to find a way for everyone toget most of what they want.

Big groups like the NFL may need to get an FCC license (they probably already have one) and the guys can use them if they stay low power.

Anybody know how much power a basic lavaliere setup needs?

"Anybody know how much power a basic lavaliere setup needs?"

Both the Senny G2 and G3 units have a rated output of 30mW.

Bob.

Bob, bring some extra money with you to NAB this year and buy whatever wireless units people are desperate to sell that will still work down in Australia.
I'm sure you'll get more than a few sellers anxiously looking for you :-)

Mike

So it seems this new change will allow you to operate a Sennheiser G2 or g3 legally? Anyone want to weigh in on other brands.

Whether you have a license or not, all wireless mics in the 698 to 806 Mhz frequency range will be banned as of June 12th. Period.

Everyone who has owned a wireless mic that has operated in this frequency range and has not had a license has been operating the mic illegally.

John are you saying that going forward the rules will be.

A. No wireless mics from 698 to 806 Mhz

B. Wireless mics outside this range are OK as long there are below 50 milliwatts and not interfering with any licensed use.

So the amnesty on unlicensed low power use only applies outside the 700 mHz band.

Yes, use of any wireless mic in the 700 Mhz band must cease on June 12th 2010, no exceptions.

All 700Mhz wireless mics were authorized under Part 74 and required a license from the FCC. Only 938 entities actually obtained licenses, everyone else was operating illegally which I suspect included JackW, the original poster in the thread that wants to be compensated for his loss. The FCC has changed the rules to allow wireless microphones unlicensed use under Part 15 in the remaining TV bands below channel 52.

It's kind of like what happened to CB radio in the 70s, you were required to have a license but millions of people completely ignored the law. The FCC finally did away with the licensing requirement.

There is another huge problem looming on the horizion; wireless mics aren't the only unlicensed users of the TV bands. A variety of "White space devices" will enter the market over the coming year and operate in the same spectrum as the wireless mics but at a much higher power. This is going to make it much more difficult to find a clear channel on which to operate your wireless mic. However, some new wireless mics have automatic scanning to make finding an unused channel easier.

The FCC is still pondering what to do about wireless mics. Here is the text from the "Consumer Alert" now required on all wireless mic packaging:

"Most users do not need a license to operate this wireless microphone system. Nevertheless,operating this microphone system without a license is subject to certain restrictions: the systemmay not cause harmful interference; it must operate at a low power level (not in excess of 50 milliwatts); and it has no protection from interference received from any other device. Purchasers should also be aware that the FCC is currently evaluating use of wireless microphone systems, and these rules are subject to change."

Actually the purpose of my post had nothing to do with whether or not users of the 700mgHz band were doing so legally; nor was it a gripe about lost money, which is minimal.

Rather it was an observation that there appears to be a complete disregard for the provisions of the 5th Amendment by the FCC: if a portion of the property my home is located on is taken through the exercise of Immanent Domain, I'm compensated for the loss.

I'm merely curious as to why the FCC doesn't have to compensate anyone -- legal or illegal -- who lost the use of equipment owing to the taking of the 700mgHz band. I was hopeful that someone on the Forum might have an answer to that question. I still am.

Jack

"if a portion of the property my home is located on is taken through the exercise of Immanent Domain, I'm compensated for the loss."

You own the land, you never owned a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Even if you had a licence it's just that, a permit to use, no different to a drivers licence. You lost the licence or the free concession to use, you still have the equipment just like you still have the car after you loose your drivers licence.

The electromagnetic spectrum is considered the property of the public in any country from what I can gather.

Bob.