“Our number one priority is to provide our customers with the highest quality products, service, and support,” said Al Hershner, Vice President and General Manager of the Shure U.S Business Unit. “We’ve known for some time that the ‘700 MHz band’ would be reallocated for new services following the DTV transition on February 18, 2009. Although a final decision from the FCC is still pending, we felt the need to assure our customers now that we will take care of them regardless of the outcome.”
“There has been a great deal of confusion for wireless microphone users regarding the political and technological developments surrounding the DTV transition and the 700 MHz auction over the past few years,” added Hershner. “As always, Shure has a team of sales, customer service, and technical support staff available to answer any questions people might have about this rebate program or their products.”Hmmm....could this have something to do with the recent push by the incoming public safety and commercial 700 MHz licensees to take this seriously so it won't mess up deployment? Could Shure be trying to fob off the FCC with a fake remedial action while boosting its own sales and recruiting its customers for a massive push against the wireless guys and public safety? Or is that just my nasty and suspicious nature rejecting the idea that Shure is deeply — deeply I say — concerned about its customers (which it assures the FCC are only retailers and not members of the public ineligible for licenses to operate such systems) and I should be ashamed of myself for questioning this noble voluntary remediation by an upstanding corporate citizen that just happened to build its business on wholesale violation of federal law?
“They do interfere with the incoming public safety and commercial systems because those are much weaker two-way systems.) Concern about this has prompted large delegations from the wireless industry (joined at times by yr hmbl obdn't blogger) to push the FCC to do something about this ASAP.”
It's interesting that APCO and others in the PS community have not filed a single complaint, petition or other comment in the past 30 or so years regarding Part 74 operations in channels 14-20 in the 13 MEAs where they are shared with PLMRS/CMRS [T-band] public safety services, and more recently, other municipal services beyond the original 13 MEAs.
Henry:
True, but they are in with us now. Suggest you ask them whether they had problems and just didn't recognize the source, or the local orgs using those bands didn't know about the potential problem and their right to file a complaint.
Also, there is a heck of a lot more use in the upper UHF bands. The odds of running into a wireless microphone are higher overall in those bands.
But again, suggest you go ask them.
“Also, there is a heck of a lot more use in the upper UHF bands. The odds of running into a wireless microphone are higher overall in those bands.”
True, but not by much these days. Larger shows use plenty of 470 - 512MHz part 74 devices (mostly intercom and cueing), and have for a number of years now. But I do agree that the average bar band, weekend sound company operator, community church and wedding videographer are more likely to have VHF or upper UHF gear.
“But again, suggest you go ask them”
We have: NYPD's 14th precinct encompasses midtown Broadway and the theater district. Patrolmen, at pre-show and show time, are out front of the theaters in the streets, behind in the alley ways and occasionally wander backstage prior to 1/2 hour. There is a very good relationship with many of the rank and file patrolmen as well as the precinct commanders. For many years now frequency band planning has put dozens if not scores of wireless intercom and cueing in 470-500MHz. These include 100mW constant broadcast base stations using 1/4 wave and log periodic dipole array antennas at four to six feet in height. When asked, officers have never expressed any difficulty in receiving transmissions when near operating Part 74 devices. (Of course, if they go to the basement areas, the normal attenuation of the building structure precludes reliable reception. We know it's not the Part 74 devices desensing the PS radios because they experience the same RX issues with all the wireless mic/com/IFB/IEM powered off.) Their nearest base station antenna is several blocks away, shadowed by several tall buildings with an ERP of about 100W.
Although certainly not representative of all PS / Part 74 operations, it is a good indicator of interference mitigation through proper frequency coordination. Further, given the advanced interference detection equipment and capabilities available to the average two-way radio shop over the past ten years or so, if there were PS systems experiencing interference from Part 74 operations, wouldn't you think we'd have heard of at least one case somewhere in the country? After all, there are an “estimated at least 1 million based on trade publications” [Part 74 devices] out there.
However I'll reiterate that from a public policy perspective, PS spectrum should have no co-channel services. Period.
Comments must be approved before being published.
Comments must be approved before being published.
Want to get updates when someone comments on this story?
Click here to manage subscription




<i><blockquote>In spectrum management terms, if the 700 MHz is the “beach front” spectrum, wireless microphone manufacturers are the Exxon Valdez.</i></blockquote>
Great line.