Members BillESC Posted October 27, 2009 Members Share Posted October 27, 2009 You might be getting this letter. http://www.superlux.us/images/Verizon_Letter.pdf If Verizon files a complaint with the FCC and the FCC determines you in fact are operating a wireless mic in their frequency range, your equipment will be confiscated and you may be fined $ 11,000.00 per day per system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Chinese Posted October 27, 2009 Members Share Posted October 27, 2009 You might be getting this letter.http://www.superlux.us/images/Verizon_Letter.pdfIf Verizon files a complaint with the FCC and the FCC determines you in fact are operating a wireless mic in their frequency range, your equipment will be confiscated and you may be fined $ 11,000.00 per day per system. Yikes. Well it was at least a somewhat respectful letter. Hope this wasn't addressed to you! T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NUSound Posted October 27, 2009 Members Share Posted October 27, 2009 Interesting... AFAIK, Verizon hasn't planned to launch their 4G network until mid to late 2010, so I seriously doubt that anyone is actually interfering at this point, aside from test regions (Seattle and one other?). The letter states that Verizon is entitled to protection by the FCC from harmful interference, so I think that the case could be made for a few more months that wireless mics aren't causing harmful interference. My guess is that Verizon is trying to clear the airwaves peacefully before they launch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SpaceNorman Posted October 27, 2009 Members Share Posted October 27, 2009 Sounds ominous ... but hard to imagine there being alot of real meat in such a threat. Most wireless mics have a range that's measured in feet. The "big guys" deploying wireless gear will by then have upgraded. The weekend warrior types and their one non-compliant wireless mic will be long gone before Verizon manages to dispatch troubleshooting expertise to analyze a disruption. For most, my bet is that this is about as big a threat as a mattress tag warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NUSound Posted October 27, 2009 Members Share Posted October 27, 2009 For most, my bet is that this is about as big a threat as a mattress tag warning. Most people fail to realize that the fine print on those labels includes a phrase like "except by end-user." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zeromus-X Posted October 27, 2009 Members Share Posted October 27, 2009 That is nuts. That's on the level of "Metallica sues fans for MP3 downloads". $11,000 per day per system? Come on now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted October 27, 2009 Members Share Posted October 27, 2009 The chance of them being able to pinpoint the trouble source as a wireless mic is about as likely as them actually succeding in making a wireless network that is really reliable. I have been waiting for several months while they try to figure out why my service is so {censored}ty, they spend a lot of time pointing fingers but not much time solving problems. They are too busy with the marketing to actually solve the problems they created themselves. The radiated field strength outside the venue or premise is so distant that it's unlikely to cause any issues or even be detected if they are really transmitting it that area of the spectrum. That also would mean that the wireless mic wouldn't work so it would be a moot point. Their signal strength is orders of magnitude higher than standard UHF wireless mics. I hate bully tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Chinese Posted October 27, 2009 Members Share Posted October 27, 2009 Well, there's no threat in the letter per se, just a notice to cease operations, so I wouldn't call it Bullying just yet, at least not in the Monster Cable sense. There are also rumors flying about a 4g iPhone w/ Verizon so its possible there's a lot at stake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members abzurd Posted October 27, 2009 Members Share Posted October 27, 2009 I hate bully tactics. I'll have to respectfully disagree. The letter was firm, but respectful. The fact is, like it or not, they shelled out huge bucks and now own those frequencies. You can't operate an FM station legally, especially one that tramples on an existing station, just because you have the physical equipment to do so. This really isn't any different is it? It seems to me the wireless industry has been operating on the premise of "squaters rights" for years. Companies make equipment to broadcast, but also have a disclaimer that an FCC license may be required to operate it. It's kind of like fireworks here in Ohio. You can buy them, but have to sign off that you'll use them outside of the state. Anyway, this letter is likely aimed at installs (churches, schools, concert halls). I would suspect those are the places that can do minor damage to folks living or working next door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted October 27, 2009 Members Share Posted October 27, 2009 The whole industry uses bully tactics, I wasn't referring just to the letter. The use of whitespace UHF was a legal use provided you did not cause interference. At 10-50mW, at UHF frequencies, it's unlikely that you would cause any intereference outside of 100 feet, especially inside a building since exterior walls are pretty effective at attenuating the radiated signal. At my venue for example, I can not detect a signal of any strength outside the exterior, therefore I fall into the area of not causing interference with any signal outside of our venue and we have a no cellphone device policy inside, though their signal is also too weak to be useable in most areas. So for the industry to go after me, they would have to trespass for the purpose of prosecution which would likely be seen as unreasonable search & siezure in the eyes of a reasonable person. If the signal was to cause intereference, that would be a different story... but prosecution without the action causing any damages (interference) is to my thinking bully tactics. I suspect this will be tested in the legal system at some time. Not by me though. Note that we are talking about sources that are 100-10,000x lower radiated power than the cell phone industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Axisplayer Posted October 27, 2009 Members Share Posted October 27, 2009 I am just speculating because I am out of my expertise here. If Verizon had a handheld wireless device (phone/PDA/etc) that sold well and customers in the club you were playing at noticed that they could NEVER get the device to work in that club because of mic interference I would think that Verizon might investigate and find a culprit, but I think those devices are a bit in the future and sources of interference are numerous so it might be hard to prosecute, but I do think that a lot of wireless gear in 700 could be a problem in a specific environment with specific uses. Once again, I dunno....just speculating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members congaron Posted October 27, 2009 Members Share Posted October 27, 2009 verison tried to charge me for "previous month usage" with no further information. They had a number of MB and a charge..just above it was the current moth which was 1 GB short of my limit. It just so happened to be the biggest usage month we've had due to microsoft upgrades and a game called Yo-ville my wife started playing . I called them and simply demanded they remove it. They did. They even said they don't know why it was on there! All this and dropped calls on our phones to boot. Can you hear me now? It's a joke in our family. we are going to cable when our contract is up for this aircard. The signal is so random it's worse than dial-up sometimes. We are 3.5 miles from a tower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dogoth Posted October 27, 2009 Members Share Posted October 27, 2009 The chance of them being able to pinpoint the trouble source as a wireless mic is about as likely as them actually succeding in making a wireless network that is really reliable. That also would mean that the wireless mic wouldn't work so it would be a moot point. Their signal strength is orders of magnitude higher than standard UHF wireless mics. I hate bully tactics. A couple of local sound contractors (that I know of) got that letter. As Agedhorse points out. If you use this equipment and there's interference, then you shut it off and go hardwired (or find a different freq). The response time for the FCC would be......................the next day (they really don't have 24 hour roving Vans set up to triangulate on " I do have a friend that has an illegal FM transmitter (pretty nice - it's somewhere around 200 watts and with a figure 8 antenna he gets out pretty good :>). He used to play DJ and broadcast on weekends. The FCC DID catch him (hard to miss that 25' mast). They were very nice - even said they liked his classic rock selection - but after the 3rd time said "next time, it's a $10,000 fine." I guess it's gone up 10% since then. He doesn't broadcast anymore. I think he's gone internet (duh!!!). I inherited an old beat up Shure UC Hand Held system (the mic is pretty much toast (the plastic case has been broken and reglued too many times). The folks I got it from (of course) kept the capsule for their other mics anyway. I have been looking for a used beltpack on ebay (it's a UC1 UB) but to no avail so far (the UB designation puts it squarely in the upper 600mhz to lower 700mhz range). I asked Shure service and they said they no longer support those products (so no recrystaling). I was going to let the guitarist in my band get spoiled with a decent wireless unit until it becomes usless (a few years from now). I don't want to spend more than a few dollars on it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted October 27, 2009 Members Share Posted October 27, 2009 I am just speculating because I am out of my expertise here. If Verizon had a handheld wireless device (phone/PDA/etc) that sold well and customers in the club you were playing at noticed that they could NEVER get the device to work in that club because of mic interference I would think that Verizon might investigate and find a culprit, but I think those devices are a bit in the future and sources of interference are numerous so it might be hard to prosecute, but I do think that a lot of wireless gear in 700 could be a problem in a specific environment with specific uses.Once again, I dunno....just speculating. In our venue, there's no service anyway. It's 36" of brick with a grounded metal lath interior, great shielding and eliminates much of the texting that would happen during concerts and events. Win-win. The only wireless access is with our internal LAN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dboomer Posted October 27, 2009 Members Share Posted October 27, 2009 Interesting... AFAIK, Verizon hasn't planned to launch their 4G network until mid to late 2010 Verizon has promised 30 metro areas by the end of 2009 and another 100 by end of 2010. Boston, Seattle and Portland are active today. btw ... Droid launches Oct 30th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted October 27, 2009 Members Share Posted October 27, 2009 Verizon has promised 30 metro areas by the end of 2009 and another 100 by end of 2010. Boston, Seattle and Portland are active today.btw ... Droid launches Oct 30th Ahhh, more promises. Hope they keep this promise better than their promise of good connections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zeromus-X Posted October 28, 2009 Members Share Posted October 28, 2009 I don't know if this is commonplace and we're just late to the party, but: Recently our city decided they weren't making enough money, and they implemented a "false alarm fee" that must be paid by anyone with a security system in their home. Not when you make a false alarm. It's a yearly fee of $25 to anyone who has a security system. It includes two false alarm calls in the fee. A third one will cost you $100, a fourth will cost you $250 and they will stop responding for the remainder of the month. There are more fees as well -- such as a $200 fee for a "false panic", etc. If you do not pay this $25 fee, it's a $50 fine per month per security system. Aware that they'd have no way to police this, they decided to let the alarm companies do the dirty work. So now, when you sign up for a monitored system, the company must file a paper with the city saying "Yep, they have a security system." Then the city will bill you for your $25 fee. Failure to report a customer's new system is something like a $500 fee per customer per system to the security company, so they're not going to mess around there. Even if you don't have a monitored system, if your alarm goes off and the police show up (as in, say, a neighbor calls them because your alarm is audible), and you're not on the list of people signed up, you'll be fined for not paying your fees, and they won't come back until you pay. Sounds like we're close to this happening with the wireless companies. Buy a wireless mic kit, sign off that you're the owner, and if the frequencies change, they've got a list of who's got 'em. FCC has to show up and finds unlicensed units, or units operating in an unlicensed frequency? That's a fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members W. M. Hellinger Posted October 28, 2009 Members Share Posted October 28, 2009 Ahhh, more promises. Hope they keep this promise better than their promise of good connections. I'm a Verizon cell phone customer. From my view point (based on my local service by Verizon), conflicting use of their airwaves shouldn't be an issue anywhere around here. Can you hear me? (silence). Ok, lemme try this spot... I might have a bar now... so can you hear me NOW???!!! (silence). Fuggit... I'll use a land line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dboomer Posted October 28, 2009 Members Share Posted October 28, 2009 Fuggit... I'll use a land line. Wow ... I didn't even think way out where you are there were twisted pairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dboomer Posted October 28, 2009 Members Share Posted October 28, 2009 Sounds like we're close to this happening with the wireless companies. Buy a wireless mic kit, sign off that you're the owner, and if the frequencies change, they've got a list of who's got 'em. FCC has to show up and finds unlicensed units, or units operating in an unlicensed frequency? That's a fine. This IS already the current law. I forget the exact number ... but in the history of licenses there have only been issued fewer than 200 in the 700 mHz band. Everyone else is a squatter;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BillESC Posted October 28, 2009 Author Members Share Posted October 28, 2009 Wow ... I didn't even think way out where you are there were twisted pairs. I don't understand . . . If MY PAIR were twisted I'd be yelling loud enough not to need a mic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members preacherman672 Posted October 28, 2009 Members Share Posted October 28, 2009 I have 2 Shure PSM 400 series receivers and 5 beltpacks and I am trying to figure out my options. As I understand this is only in the U.S.? If I were to sell or donate this system to someone not in the U.S. they would be able to use it? Or am I jumping the gun and should just wait and see what happens? Ever since Verizon has taken over Alltel here locally my cell service has went rapidly down hill. Les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dboomer Posted October 28, 2009 Members Share Posted October 28, 2009 If I were to sell or donate this system to someone not in the U.S. they would be able to use it? The quick answer is yes ... but each country has it's own rules. You'll have to check with the proper authorities where you plan to use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members preacherman672 Posted October 29, 2009 Members Share Posted October 29, 2009 The quick answer is yes ... but each country has it's own rules. You'll have to check with the proper authorities where you plan to use them. Is there any place you know of on the net I could find a listing of what countries use what frequencies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dboomer Posted October 29, 2009 Members Share Posted October 29, 2009 AFAIK ... you have to go one by one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.