The latest from Ofcom on the future of Radio Mics

[TAG1960]

This letter arrived in the post this morning which I thought I would share with you all. Appologies if you have already seen it.

 

 

"The Digital Dividend and availability of channel 69 for wireless microphones

This letter is to make you aware that Ofcom is consulting on important proposals concerning the future availability of channel 69 (854-862 MHz) for wireless microphones.

 

Throughout our Digital Dividend Review, which has considered how best to release the spectrum freed up by digital switchover (DSO) for new uses, we have noted the importance that wireless-microphone users place on having access to high-quality, UK-wide spectrum. We had therefore envisaged channel 69 remaining available for wireless-microphone use in the future, albeit that access would be granted by a band manager rather than by us or our agents (currently JFMG).

 

However, an increasing number of other European countries are creating their own digital dividends that include channel 69 as well as two other channels 61 and 62, currently planned for other use by (digital terrestrial television) in the UK after DSO. This is because this spectrum is likely to be particularly suitable for new generations of mobile-broadband services. As a result, we have considered whether we should include these channels in the UK's digital dividend and concluded that there would be very substantial net benefits from making _this change.

 

If we were to include channel 69 in the digital dividend, we must find other spectrum that is a suitable replacement for wireless microphones. We must also make sure that the change has as little adverse effect on users as possible. This includes ensuring existing licensees do not bear extra costs that must reasonably be incurred to move from channel 69.

We have proposed channel 38 (606-614 MHz) as the best alternative to channel 69 for wireless microphones. Channel 38 is available now across the UK, subject only to restrictions to protect a small number of radio astronomy sites. These restrictions will be removed during 2012.

 

To facilitate moving wireless microphones from channel 69, we have also proposed that:

• users should have continued UK-wide access to the spectrum being released by DSO until late 2012;

• funding should be available to cover the cost of modifying or replacing existing licensed equipment able to use channel 69 but not channel 38.

 

Our proposals can be found at http://www.ofcom.orq.uk/consult/condocs/800mhz/800mhz.pdf. We invite responses by 20 April 2009 and expect to announce our decisions shortly after.

 

You may also wish to note that wireless microphones can and will continue to be able to use channel 70 (863-865 MHz) without the need for a wireless telegraphy licence. Wireless microphones that use channel 69 may well be able to use channel 70 with little or no modification. Your equipment manufacturer may be able to advise you. However, you should also be aware that using spectrum on a licence-exempt basis does not confer the same protection from interference as licensed use.

If you would like to discuss the contents of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me using the details given above.

Yours sincerely,

John Canavan "

 

 

I Hope that several thousand users will write to mr Canavan, I Know I will. For anyone who doesnt know, Ofcom can be found at Riverside House, 2A Southwark Bridge Road, London, SE1 9HA

 

From this I can assume that the large stock of CH69 Radios I own will become doorstops after 2012...Better try and get them out between now and then!

:D

Neil

[J Pearce]

That still doesn't really give enough channels of radio pack though.

This effectively forces the industry to digital multiplexed units, which IMO are not the answer. Imagine the following scenario, a singer using handheld radio mic and wireless IEMs (like most solo artists). The desk is a digital desk (like most out on tour with solo artists).

 

So, we have:

ADC delay and a processing (encoding) delay in the radio mic, then a decoding delay and DAC delay in the receiver. Approx 4ms

ADC, DSP and DAC delay in the desk. Approx 4ms

ADC and encoding delay in the IEM transmitter, then a decoding and DAC delay in the receiver. Approx 4ms.

 

All of those delays were fairly insignificant alone. However we now have a cumulative delay of 12ms; on IEM this will be noticeable as there will be a direct signal from bone conduction. In studio land there has been a great push to get latencies below 5ms.

 

So, do we redesign all our new digital desks to have multiple AES/EBU or similar inputs and outputs to lessen this delay? (though it would likely still be in the region of 6-8ms for the multiplex encode/decode)

 

This ignores the engineering challenges of providing a multiplexed transmission from multiple discrete transmitters, at a cost that the industry can support.

 

It also means in our current age of recycle and be friendly to the earth that there will be 100s (1000s?) of transmitters that are effectively ready for the bin, as not much of the lower level kit can be tuned down to Ch38.

[TAG1960]

Not to mention the cost

[mervaka]

to me it seems an inevitability. the future of these mics IMO is in digital signals, with digital outputs on the receivers, as Jon says. processing will just have to speed up to negate the delay imposed.

 

another idea I was thinking of was for the mics to use delta sigma encoding, which works in the MHz range of sampling. latencies using DS are fractional in comparison. I'm just not sure if converting it back to PCM at the receiver would negate these benefits or not.

[sleah]

So, as a school we're *ooked :D

 

I bought a Trantec 8 way racked'n'ready just short of two years ago to replace the ageing nearly 10 year old VHF's :blink:

 

I will now have to tell the finance dept that we have to skip them LONG before the end of their service life.... they are used once a year (maybe twice). By 2012 they will have had no more than approx 50 days actual use!!!!!!

 

OFCOM really do not give the slightest stuff about a large many of the people whom they are supposed to protect the interests of :P

 

I honestly believe they ONLY see pound signs, they only care about lining pockets, even if it isn't theirs :o

 

EDIT: Forgot to add...

 

Unless I can get a digital desk in a similar price bracket to current analogue... I dunno, say £500 for a mixer with 8mic ins, then digital is most definately NOT the way forward for a huge number of us!

[Ben Langfeld]

they are used once a year (maybe twice). By 2012 they will have had no more than approx 50 days actual use!!!!!!

 

So in that case, purchase was probably the wrong decision.

 

How come everyone has conveniently missed the line that says:

 

funding should be available to cover the cost of modifying or replacing existing licensed equipment able to use channel 69 but not channel 38.

[mervaka]

Unless I can get a digital desk in a similar price bracket to current analogue... I dunno, say £500 for a mixer with 8mic ins, then digital is most definately NOT the way forward for a huge number of us!

 

that will also come sooner than you think. its just a matter of time before the used market gets flooded with small analogue consoles.

[Rob_Beech]

they are used once a year (maybe twice). By 2012 they will have had no more than approx 50 days actual use!!!!!!

 

So in that case, purchase was probably the wrong decision.

 

How come everyone has conveniently missed the line that says:

 

funding should be available to cover the cost of modifying or replacing existing licensed equipment able to use channel 69 but not channel 38.

 

Because nobody has a bloody license.

 

I agree 134%. If they get used once or at best twice a year then you'd have to be a fool to buy 8 units. 8 units can be hired for £360 per week exc vat, with HH, Lavs, or Headsets.

 

So let's average 1 and a half weeks per year, £540, would buy what. 1 unit and a spare headset / lavalier mic.

 

Who made that decision then?

 

 

Of course, the trick to the digital thing with lots of latency building up is keeping things in the digital domain. From mic to desk to IEM, even through processing on monitors and FOH, if we keep things in the digital domain for as much of the signal chain as we can then we'll minimise this. We'll probably take any life or warmth out of the sound, but at least it'll be low latency.

 

 

 

There are maybe 2 or 3 occassions per year where I have over 24 wireless units out. Any additioanl ones are sub hired. I don't buy things I don't use enough to make pay, I sub hire them. As a school buying expensive stuff like this that hardly gets used is a waste of money they don't have.

[Simon Lewis]

How come everyone has conveniently missed the line that says:

funding should be available to cover the cost of modifying or replacing existing licensed equipment able to use channel 69 but not channel 38.

 

I don't think people have missed that line. The way it seems to be interpreted so far is a) you need to already have a channel 69 licence b) it's expected that depreciation will be applied (so you won't just be given the money to buy a new system) and c) the sum of money that is quoted in the discussion document is considered to be much less than the replacement cost of the actual radio system stock out there.

 

There's a strong belief that users will be considerably out of pocket.

 

Simon

[AndyL]

The way it seems to be interpreted so far is a) you need to already have a channel 69 licence b) it's expected that depreciation will be applied (so you won't just be given the money to buy a new system) and c) the sum of money that is quoted in the discussion document is considered to be much less than the replacement cost of the actual radio system stock out there.

 

There's a strong belief that users will be considerably out of pocket.

 

Simon

 

The other important thing is:

 

"Our proposals can be found at http://www.ofcom.orq.uk/consult/condocs/800mhz/800mhz.pdf. We invite responses by 20 April 2009 and expect to announce our decisions shortly after. "

It's a CONSULTATION document.

 

Everything in it is up for discussion. If you don't like the proposals, e.g. on funding, then say so! Send in a response!

 

You can respond just on one point you don't have to comment on everything in the document.

 

But please, if you do respond to the consultation, get your facts straight first.

 

[Simon Lewis]

It's a CONSULTATION document.

 

Everything in it is up for discussion.

It certainly is.

However, Ofcom invited responses to the previous consultation. From memory, responses from the PMSE sector called for Channel 69 to be retained as a licenced block of spectrum available across the UK. There was a sense that although not perfect, something of that battle had been won, or at least the PMSE sector had been listened to.

 

Now the goalposts have been moved by Ofcom - they wish to sell channel 69, are providing potentially less alternative spectrum and are asking if we think it is a good idea? Furthermore, I suspect that I'm not the only one who feels that the questions posed in the consultation document tend to limit or guide the responses that can be made?

 

I don't think I've got any facts wrong, but I have quoted from some of the trade press responses to the February paper.

 

The document does state:

At this initial stage, we believe the level of such financial assistance to which PMSE users may be entitled should be based on the lower cost of either modifying equipment or replacing it, the latter based on the residual equivalent value of existing equipment and not the cost of buying new equipment. This avoids the situation where public money is used to buy new equipment that would have replaced old equipment with little remaining usable life anyway.

and:

 

For the purposes of assessing claims, our working assumptions for possible criteria to be satisfied for initial consideration as to entitlement are that:

• we would only consider assistance for equipment purchased before publication of this consultation document (i.e. 2 February 2009);
  
• claimants would need to hold a licence to use channel 69 valid before publication of this document;
  
• the equipment would need to be capable of tuning to channel 69 but not channel 38; and
  
• the full lifecycle of equipment from the date of its original purchase is 10 years.
  

Ofcom may well consult, but my mildly cynical mind suggests that certain decisions may have already be made;-)

Furthermore, those who didn't have licences will probably be stuffed. Some chose not to buy a licence - and that's their perogative, but many churches, charities and voluntary organisations simply didn't know they needed one. They bought the device, followed the "autotune" instructions and ended up with a working system that may be useless in three years time.

Simon

[Modge]

Furthermore, those who didn't have licences will probably be stuffed. Some chose not to buy a licence - and that's their perogative, but many churches, charities and voluntary organisations simply didn't know they needed one. They bought the device, followed the "autotune" instructions and ended up with a working system that may be useless in three years time.

I whole heartily agree that the consultation is a "Making people feel better about having change for the worse forced upon them (so offcom can make some more money)" exercise, however I'd argue that those who are currently using radio mikes illegally are if anything in a better position than those with licences: offcom knows where to find those with licences, those with out can continue blithely unaware same as they have until now: it won’t be any less legal. Of course in theory one day someone else will buy that spectrum and they might have inference issues but that we can’t be sure about the outcome of: it could well be that a radio mic 50’ away will over power a mast 50 miles away.

 

Just for the record, all the people I’ve worked with have had licences for their radio mic’s even the one’s I wouldn’t have expected it from! (not that I’ve done a survey, but I have big flappy ears)

[sleah]

:o wish I'd not spoken up now :blink:

 

Regarding purchasing radio mics for school, to be brief:

 

Purchase money comes from a CAPEX budget and/or fundraising.

Hire money would come out of every show's ticket money.

This is one main reason why we stopped hiring, it wiped out a chunk of the ticket money which is needed for things that have to be hired, and consumables.

 

We talk inc. VAT prices so based on £400 per week hire, then add on transport (delivery) costs etc etc then after around 5-6 years we've almost broken even, if indeed we only used them for 1 week a year.

It is rather convenient to be able to drag the system out at a moments notice, not having to worry about booking a hire slot, then having to sort out returns... (I don't do this full time in the school, I have a zillion other jobs - in the school - too :D )

It does mean we can use them more as need arises, we also sometimes have loaned them out to other schools as a freebie.

They don't get abused so will last a long time, with only the occasional broken clip.

 

Commercially, I agree completely it doesn't make sense, but it works for us!

 

I was maybe a little general in my first post :P

[Rob_Beech]

I would delivery and collect for that price as I'm only an hour away but I understand where you're coming from. I'm realising now the units may have been cheaper than I thought too.

[paulears]

So basically, OFCOM are making people cease purchase of any current popular systems, as now we know, they know we know and it's up to us to pay for the modifications. Anybody without proof of purchase and/or a current licence is stuffed. Ok - that's me sorted then - I'm happy. I just will limp through until Sennheiser make a G3 that has wider bandwidth.

 

As for those without licences, hard luck. No sympathy there at all. If people don't read the instructions or are simply too unaware, it's their lookout. It's been talked about in the press and on-line for those interested enough. Trouble is, in many parts of the country, they may still be able to use the kit in ignorance, until the interference starts.