Microphone Interests Coalition Responds to White Spaces ³Compromise Solution²
 
NEW YORK, NY, April 7, 2008 ‹ A broad coalition of high-profile wireless
microphone users, organized as the Microphone Interests Coalition (MIC),
today sharply criticized the recent proposal submitted by Google to open the
so-called ³white spaces² to unlicensed device use.  
 
Google is touting the proposal as a spectrum compromise that eliminates any
remaining interference concerns about using personal/portable devices in the
unassigned TV channels called white spaces. The Microphone Interests
Coalition, however, says the plan is far from a compromise and certainly
should not be viewed as a solution for wireless microphones.
 
The proposal, similar to one submitted earlier by Motorola, would require
wireless microphone users to purchase and operate a so-called ³beacon²
transmitter -- akin to a jamming device -- and would rely on white space
devices to ³sense² this beacon in order to prevent the white space device
from interfering with microphone transmissions.  Google¹s proposal also
identifies a ³safe harbor² of three TV channels in which wireless microphones
could operate without interference from new devices.  Additional protections
would be provided by intelligent ³spectrum sensing² technology embedded in
the portable devices.  This sensing technology is currently under evaluation
in FCC laboratory testing.

³Despite their claims, the Google proposal does virtually nothing to protect
wireless microphones. In short, their Œenhanced spectrum protection plan¹
doesn't work,² said Ed Greene, Emmy Award-winning Audio Director who works on
countless productions including The Academy Awards, American Idol, The Tony
Awards and the Super Bowl Halftime Show. ³Because of the potentially
devastating effect on thousands of wireless microphones in daily use, the FCC
should not consider adopting their proposal.²
 
³To serious audio professionals, the hype surrounding this proposal does not
disguise the fact that it is nothing more than several flawed ideas thrown
together under a new label,² said James Stoffo, Wireless Coordinator for
events such as the Super Bowl, Latin Grammys, and NBA All-Star Game.  ³Google
apparently hopes that the FCC can be steamrolled into rubber-stamping their
agenda.²
 
³Google seems to suggest that microphone users should be grateful for such a
generous offer.  But, make no mistakeŠthe proposal for a beacon and safe
harbor channels is pretty much like offering a starving man a few crumbs and
a drawing of a sandwich. If that¹s their idea of enhanced protection, I¹d
hate to see the un-enhanced version,² added T. Richard Fitzgerald of Sound
Associates, a primary wireless supplier to Broadway theaters in New York.  
³There are several reasons why the beacon concept compounds the Œwhite
spaces¹ challenges already before the Commission and, in engineering terms,
offers no practical solution at all,² said Scott Harmala, CTO of ATK
Audiotek, a firm that supplies wireless audio equipment for many of the
nation¹s major TV award shows.  He outlined some of the concerns of the
Microphone Interests Coalition members:
 
³First, the proposed beacon has not been developed, operated, or tested in
any fashion or in any forum.  How can the FCC possibly approve an
interference protection technology without anyone having seen it work? The
Commission¹s commitment to testing before ruling is well known, and should be
followed here. This includes field analysis in actual operating
environments,² said Harmala.
 
³Second, the beacon concept relies on spectrum sensing -- the very technology
that is performing so poorly in the FCC¹s ongoing test.  Beacons could be
just as difficult to detect as the wireless microphones themselves and could
create additional interference problems.  Without thorough testing, there is
no way to know.²
 
Bill Evans, Editor of Front Of House magazine, adds, ³Assuming a beacon were
to be developed, the fine print reveals that very few wireless microphone
users would be allowed to own and operate one. Documents filed by Google,
Motorola and others make it clear that they believe that the great majority
of wireless microphone users -- who have developed a sophisticated, tried and
true frequency coordination system that has enabled operation in this
spectrum without issue for decades -- do not deserve any protection priority.
 Any proposal that leaves touring concert and show productions, hotels and
convention centers, Broadway and theaters across the country, houses of
worship, civic auditoriums, educational institutions, and large entertainment
venues out in the cold cannot be described as serving the public interest.²  
 
MIC members also believe the proposal to establish a ³safe harbor² for
wireless microphones on TV channels 36, 37, and 38 is also flawed.  ³Channel
37 is reserved for medical telemetry and radio astronomy use, and the
Commission has repeatedly acted to preserve it for that purpose,² said Ed
Wieczorek, wireless audio consultant for various television programs produced
in Manhattan. ³Channels 36 and 38 are occupied by DTV stations in many
markets such as New York and Los Angeles, and even in those areas where they
are not, two channels of spectrum are woefully inadequate for the wireless
audio needs of a large production.²
 
³In the end, one of the biggest disappointments we have with the proposal is
that it attempts once again to distract the FCC from their mission of
conducting thorough research that leads to well-informed rulemaking,² said
Steve Gibson, Music Director and Producer of Broadcast Audio for the Grand
Ole Opry in Nashville, Tennessee.  ³Throughout the white spaces proceeding,
the promise of increased broadband access for rural America has continually
been compromised by special interests that want to flood populated areas with
unproven portable devices. Now that these interests have realized that there
is no rabbit in their hat, they once again are trying to divert our
attention. The Google proposition does not rise to the level of a reasonable
and workable solution.²