Preachers and singers fighting for wireless mics

The Federal Communication Commission is planning to release more broadcast channels, but the prospect of improved cell phone reception and WiFi on steroids has provoked opposition from preachers, singers, and others dependent on wireless mics:

Two decades ago, the FCC released similar airwaves to the public, but no one thought doing so would have much impact for consumers. They were wrong: That band of short-range radio waves spawned baby monitors, garage-door openers and thousands of WiFi hot spots at Starbucks, New York’s Times Square and homes across the nation.

Now, the FCC is betting that another batch of unlicensed and better-quality airwaves will enable engineers to turn those frequencies into WiFi networks on steroids. The airwaves would connect longer distances and penetrate through concrete walls – allowing for stronger connections.

For a start, the regulatory move, generally supported by all five commissioners, could help alleviate pressure on overburdened mobile networks that have frustrated some smartphone users who deal with dropped calls and slow Web connections. . . .

Details of the proposed regulatory order haven’t been disclosed, and the move faces some opposition from broadcasters, Broadway performers and ministers. Those critics, who have filed suit against the FCC to prevent the release of white spaces, say users of that spectrum could interfere with television channels and would throw off wireless microphones that operate on those frequencies. . . .

Genachowski’s proposal would reserve two television channels in each local market for wireless microphones. News and sports broadcasters, church ministers and singer Dolly Parton have argued to the FCC that they need some spectrum reserved for their wireless microphones.

via FCC considers release of unused TV channels.

Is this referring to those Garth-Brooks flesh colored mics (pronounced “mikes”) that  hook around the ear and have that long bendable piece of plastic that sticks out in front of your mouth?  I hate those!  I’ve had to wear them when speaking, and I hate them!  And, for some reason, I don’t like  to see other people wearing them!  Or does this relate also to those battery-powered mics that you clip onto your tie or shirt, putting the main unit in your pocket with the antenna hanging out?  I don’t mind those so much.  But maybe squeezing out the bandwith of wireless microphones would be a boon to both church and culture.

Dolly, you know I’m a big fan, but you and your fellow singers do too much dancin’, putting on too big of a show.  Just stand in front of a microphone on a stand, preferably with a bulbous top, like Patsy Cline did and just sing.

Preachers, preach from the pulpit rather than roaming around.  The reason we have pulpits is that it’s easier for the congregation to see you.  It also provides a place for your manuscript or your notes.  Please use a manuscript or notes.  Those wireless mics make it possible for you to stalk around and even go into the congregation, which turns  your sermon into something your are rambling off the top of your head.  Please don’t go into the congregation.

I suppose the leaders of liturgical worship like wireless microphones with all of the turning and moving they have to do outside of the altar.  OK.  But can’t we rig mics at the altar and around the chancel?  What did ministers do before electronic speakers were invented?  I believe that was the original purpose of chanting, to enable the voice to carry farther.

At any rate, I think we should sacrifice wireless mics on the altar of better cell phone reception and wireless internet access.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • kerner

    What they did before was they built their churches with better acoustics and raised their voices.

    Maybe you are willing to sacrifice wireless mics in church. But are you willing to sacrifice wireless baby monitors? Or something as mundane as a wireless doorbell? I’ll bet there are many wireless devices that we take for granted that we wouldn’t want to lose.

  • kerner

    What they did before was they built their churches with better acoustics and raised their voices.

    Maybe you are willing to sacrifice wireless mics in church. But are you willing to sacrifice wireless baby monitors? Or something as mundane as a wireless doorbell? I’ll bet there are many wireless devices that we take for granted that we wouldn’t want to lose.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    hey kerner. quit while you are ahead. we need to petition the FCC for liturgical reasons. I am 100% with the good dr veith on this one!!!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    hey kerner. quit while you are ahead. we need to petition the FCC for liturgical reasons. I am 100% with the good dr veith on this one!!!

  • Tom Hering

    “Dolly … Just stand in front of a microphone on a stand, preferably with a bulbous top …” – Dr. Veith.

    Dolly ‘s top is …. never mind. I can’t do this. It’s too easy. No comment. :-)

  • Tom Hering

    “Dolly … Just stand in front of a microphone on a stand, preferably with a bulbous top …” – Dr. Veith.

    Dolly ‘s top is …. never mind. I can’t do this. It’s too easy. No comment. :-)

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    tom @ 3

    hahahahahahahahaha

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    tom @ 3

    hahahahahahahahaha

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    tom at 3

    and furthermore tom….

    hehehehehehehehehehehehe. gosh. that was fun.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    tom at 3

    and furthermore tom….

    hehehehehehehehehehehehe. gosh. that was fun.

  • http://www.everydepth.blogspot.com Steven Anderson

    My Board of Elders required me to use the over the ear, Britney Spears style microphone. I resisted. They insisted. I have been using it now for about one year. It does work much better for the Liturgy, as wherever I turn my head, it picks me up perfectly. I would love to dispense with all of them, but until our congregations let us tear out all the sound-killing wall to wall and pew cushions, we will need amplification.

  • http://www.everydepth.blogspot.com Steven Anderson

    My Board of Elders required me to use the over the ear, Britney Spears style microphone. I resisted. They insisted. I have been using it now for about one year. It does work much better for the Liturgy, as wherever I turn my head, it picks me up perfectly. I would love to dispense with all of them, but until our congregations let us tear out all the sound-killing wall to wall and pew cushions, we will need amplification.

  • The Jones

    I’m not a pastor, but I’ve definitely used the Britney Spears wireless mic. I’m a fan. As Mr. Anderson observed, it picks people’s voices up perfectly, eliminating problems with turning your head and looking down that clip mics and wired mics have. If the problem is with walking around when pastors preach, then scold pastors for walking around when they preach, not having the best mic around. Since the vocation of a mic is to amplify a person’s voice in a clear manner, I think it is difficult to be angry when someone gets a good one. Mental connections to “Toxic” and “Hit Me Baby One More Time” are the fault of the observer, not the person using the mic.

    On a similar note, even though I also find it annoying when pastors roam, isn’t the purpose of a sermon to pass on a message? And as anybody who’s taken a rhetoric class or given a speech knows, doesn’t passing on a message involve more than just a verbal transfer of information? You have to appeal to very human emotions, accent some areas, lessen others, talk with your body language, sometimes your hands, and point, motion, or do whatever to make your point. So… wouldn’t that make wireless mics a wonderful tool for a pastor? I mean, I’m not going to say it’s the end of the kingdom of God on Earth if they get regulated away, but Dr. Veith, this seems to be a rather strange attack on an inanimate object.

  • The Jones

    I’m not a pastor, but I’ve definitely used the Britney Spears wireless mic. I’m a fan. As Mr. Anderson observed, it picks people’s voices up perfectly, eliminating problems with turning your head and looking down that clip mics and wired mics have. If the problem is with walking around when pastors preach, then scold pastors for walking around when they preach, not having the best mic around. Since the vocation of a mic is to amplify a person’s voice in a clear manner, I think it is difficult to be angry when someone gets a good one. Mental connections to “Toxic” and “Hit Me Baby One More Time” are the fault of the observer, not the person using the mic.

    On a similar note, even though I also find it annoying when pastors roam, isn’t the purpose of a sermon to pass on a message? And as anybody who’s taken a rhetoric class or given a speech knows, doesn’t passing on a message involve more than just a verbal transfer of information? You have to appeal to very human emotions, accent some areas, lessen others, talk with your body language, sometimes your hands, and point, motion, or do whatever to make your point. So… wouldn’t that make wireless mics a wonderful tool for a pastor? I mean, I’m not going to say it’s the end of the kingdom of God on Earth if they get regulated away, but Dr. Veith, this seems to be a rather strange attack on an inanimate object.

  • http://www.christlutheran.net Jeff Samelson

    There’s another group of people — who likely won’t raise their voices to be heard — that will really miss out if wireless mics/spectrum are lost to their churches: the hard of hearing. There are many people, especially the elderly (but increasingly younger people who have damaged their hearing, too), who can hear but not too well — wireless “loop” and other systems enable them to wear special headsets or use their hearing aids to pick up a localized broadcast of the service. And if only certain portions of the service are covered by wired / fixed microphones (and others rely on the pastor’s ability to project his voice), they will end up missing a great deal of what they’ve gone to church for. Most churches don’t have the resources to fully mic up their chancels (with fixed, wired mics) to pick up everything that is spoken at the font, in front of the altar, behind the altar, at the pulpit, at the rail, etc. — a single wireless mic makes this all possible.

    Another consideration: churches that want to put their sermons and/or services on the web or record them for shut-ins and such need consistent, reliable sound input.

  • http://www.christlutheran.net Jeff Samelson

    There’s another group of people — who likely won’t raise their voices to be heard — that will really miss out if wireless mics/spectrum are lost to their churches: the hard of hearing. There are many people, especially the elderly (but increasingly younger people who have damaged their hearing, too), who can hear but not too well — wireless “loop” and other systems enable them to wear special headsets or use their hearing aids to pick up a localized broadcast of the service. And if only certain portions of the service are covered by wired / fixed microphones (and others rely on the pastor’s ability to project his voice), they will end up missing a great deal of what they’ve gone to church for. Most churches don’t have the resources to fully mic up their chancels (with fixed, wired mics) to pick up everything that is spoken at the font, in front of the altar, behind the altar, at the pulpit, at the rail, etc. — a single wireless mic makes this all possible.

    Another consideration: churches that want to put their sermons and/or services on the web or record them for shut-ins and such need consistent, reliable sound input.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I don’t normally use a mic at all. Don’t need one where I preach. But I think the over the ear ones are a bit distracting to the observers. The mental tie to “toxic” might be the fault of the hearer, but really can it be helped. My dad used one for the last couple years of his ministry, and I had many many uncharitable thoughts with that.
    As for Preaching, you’re right Vieth the Pulpit is there for a reason and ought to be used. I think it was actually Chrysostom who introduced that piece of liturgical furniture. Should say something about its effectiveness. “Golden Mouth” thought that it helped him connect with his audience. My general rule of thumb is if you can’t connect with them from the pulpit you can’t do it walking around either. But that brings me to my second point. As I have been giving myself a self imposed strong examination of Homelitics this last year, it has come to my attention that manuscripts ought to be thrown out, and notes used sparingly. This from M. Reu, in his extensive and thorough study of Lutheran Homiletics titled “Homiletics” where he argues the use of a manuscript is due to sloth on behalf of the pastor. (I know I just offended 90% of you) He argues that you ought to write a manuscript, but it ought to stay on your desk, and never make it to the pulpit. He laso argues that the habit of reading sermons is one of aping reformed practices and that was not known in Lutheran circles until after the age of Orthodoxy.
    But all that is a completely different topic than Dolly Parton’s bulbous top.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I don’t normally use a mic at all. Don’t need one where I preach. But I think the over the ear ones are a bit distracting to the observers. The mental tie to “toxic” might be the fault of the hearer, but really can it be helped. My dad used one for the last couple years of his ministry, and I had many many uncharitable thoughts with that.
    As for Preaching, you’re right Vieth the Pulpit is there for a reason and ought to be used. I think it was actually Chrysostom who introduced that piece of liturgical furniture. Should say something about its effectiveness. “Golden Mouth” thought that it helped him connect with his audience. My general rule of thumb is if you can’t connect with them from the pulpit you can’t do it walking around either. But that brings me to my second point. As I have been giving myself a self imposed strong examination of Homelitics this last year, it has come to my attention that manuscripts ought to be thrown out, and notes used sparingly. This from M. Reu, in his extensive and thorough study of Lutheran Homiletics titled “Homiletics” where he argues the use of a manuscript is due to sloth on behalf of the pastor. (I know I just offended 90% of you) He argues that you ought to write a manuscript, but it ought to stay on your desk, and never make it to the pulpit. He laso argues that the habit of reading sermons is one of aping reformed practices and that was not known in Lutheran circles until after the age of Orthodoxy.
    But all that is a completely different topic than Dolly Parton’s bulbous top.

  • Orianna Laun

    Nothing intelligent to add, just a funny incident: I used to do community theater when I was in high school, and they theater got new wireless microphones (not that the theater was big enough to warrant it). Problem? Customers of the McDonalds’ drive through across the street kept getting blasts of “Oklahoma”.

  • Orianna Laun

    Nothing intelligent to add, just a funny incident: I used to do community theater when I was in high school, and they theater got new wireless microphones (not that the theater was big enough to warrant it). Problem? Customers of the McDonalds’ drive through across the street kept getting blasts of “Oklahoma”.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    The Jones, I am mostly being facetious. I know it’s hard to tell. Bror, what the old school pastors did was first write the sermon out AND THEN MEMORIZE IT. What I’m complaining about, though facetiously, is pastors just making up the sermon as they go along.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    The Jones, I am mostly being facetious. I know it’s hard to tell. Bror, what the old school pastors did was first write the sermon out AND THEN MEMORIZE IT. What I’m complaining about, though facetiously, is pastors just making up the sermon as they go along.

  • JoeS

    The best advice I ever heard is that a $10 dollar mic cable will always sound better than a $500 wireless system. (That is more on the musical end of things.)

  • JoeS

    The best advice I ever heard is that a $10 dollar mic cable will always sound better than a $500 wireless system. (That is more on the musical end of things.)

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Dr. Veith,
    Perhaps somewhere one could have a forum just on the topic of Sermon Prep and Delivery.
    I know what you are getting at, though I sometimes wonder if making it up as you go along, as many of us at sem. suspected a few of our profs of doing, ie. Weinrich, is maybe not better than reading a manuscript.
    Though it is imminently preferable given the confines of the modern day sermon, unknown in the N.T. Church, where it truly was a homily, that is a conversation, hence telling the women to ask their questions at home in 1 Corinthians 14, that the person write his sermon out and have it committed to memory.
    The practice of making the sermon up as you go along is not very desirable given that most who do it tend not to be very theologically sound. But then when you graduate seminary, most are able to stay up till 2 am, drinking beer and smoking cigars all the while making very forceful and coherent theological arguments referencing the Bible and other theological works off the top of their head, and not being guilty of heresy. So why can’t they do that sober on Sunday morning?

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Dr. Veith,
    Perhaps somewhere one could have a forum just on the topic of Sermon Prep and Delivery.
    I know what you are getting at, though I sometimes wonder if making it up as you go along, as many of us at sem. suspected a few of our profs of doing, ie. Weinrich, is maybe not better than reading a manuscript.
    Though it is imminently preferable given the confines of the modern day sermon, unknown in the N.T. Church, where it truly was a homily, that is a conversation, hence telling the women to ask their questions at home in 1 Corinthians 14, that the person write his sermon out and have it committed to memory.
    The practice of making the sermon up as you go along is not very desirable given that most who do it tend not to be very theologically sound. But then when you graduate seminary, most are able to stay up till 2 am, drinking beer and smoking cigars all the while making very forceful and coherent theological arguments referencing the Bible and other theological works off the top of their head, and not being guilty of heresy. So why can’t they do that sober on Sunday morning?

  • Winston Smith

    One might be curmudgeonly and argue that churches should be smaller and closer in size to the New Testament churches that met in homes and catacombs, and less like rock arenas. Alternatively (or in addition), pastors should be able to fill up the sanctuary with their booming voices. George Whitfield, it was said, could be heard a mile away in an open-air setting.

    Also, how did Broadway ever get along without wireless mics? They somehow managed to stage Porgy and Bess, Oklahoma!, South Pacific and The Fantasticks without air traffic controller headgear.

  • Winston Smith

    One might be curmudgeonly and argue that churches should be smaller and closer in size to the New Testament churches that met in homes and catacombs, and less like rock arenas. Alternatively (or in addition), pastors should be able to fill up the sanctuary with their booming voices. George Whitfield, it was said, could be heard a mile away in an open-air setting.

    Also, how did Broadway ever get along without wireless mics? They somehow managed to stage Porgy and Bess, Oklahoma!, South Pacific and The Fantasticks without air traffic controller headgear.

  • Porcell

    So why can’t they do that sober on Sunday morning?

    Simply due to the fact that clear thought needs to be deliberated, whether implausibly in a a drunken stupor on a Saturday night, or hung over in the pulpit Sunday morning.

  • Porcell

    So why can’t they do that sober on Sunday morning?

    Simply due to the fact that clear thought needs to be deliberated, whether implausibly in a a drunken stupor on a Saturday night, or hung over in the pulpit Sunday morning.

  • Joanne

    My guess is that the FCC will not exclude the wireless mics, but that will not mean a return to wires.

    I’m putting 2 and 2 together here, but this looks like the regulatory hurtle that was holding back the progression to all digital over cell phone technology. Yes, voice, television, and internet all over cell phone communication standards through a box (a super cell phone) in your house or church) with no wires at all, except electronic, feeding off the nearest cell tower.

    My guess is that the wireless sound system in a church will develop into a kind of in-house mobile phone network, that otherwise functions as a sound system with telephone/Internet/television capabilities as well.

    One reason for the push to mobile phone standards of communication over pure Internet is the built-in security in telephony standards. Also, the laws of telephony security are already in place.

    I’m piecing this together from several articles read maybe one or two years ago. We’ve several good techies on this blog who probably know much more. Still, I’d always bet with wireless over wirefull for the future.

    On the other hand, I also am distracted by the showmanship association of the wireless mics when I see them in church. I’d like the wireless mic to be completely unseen. How’bout something you click on a tooth? Then throw away?

  • Joanne

    My guess is that the FCC will not exclude the wireless mics, but that will not mean a return to wires.

    I’m putting 2 and 2 together here, but this looks like the regulatory hurtle that was holding back the progression to all digital over cell phone technology. Yes, voice, television, and internet all over cell phone communication standards through a box (a super cell phone) in your house or church) with no wires at all, except electronic, feeding off the nearest cell tower.

    My guess is that the wireless sound system in a church will develop into a kind of in-house mobile phone network, that otherwise functions as a sound system with telephone/Internet/television capabilities as well.

    One reason for the push to mobile phone standards of communication over pure Internet is the built-in security in telephony standards. Also, the laws of telephony security are already in place.

    I’m piecing this together from several articles read maybe one or two years ago. We’ve several good techies on this blog who probably know much more. Still, I’d always bet with wireless over wirefull for the future.

    On the other hand, I also am distracted by the showmanship association of the wireless mics when I see them in church. I’d like the wireless mic to be completely unseen. How’bout something you click on a tooth? Then throw away?

  • Winston Smith

    Feldman @16: is medical marijuana legal where you live?

  • Winston Smith

    Feldman @16: is medical marijuana legal where you live?

  • Porcell

    Feldman, at 16, you might try to reduce that arch language to terms that we ordinary mortals can understand.

    For example:…4 of every 5 urbane Harvard scholars with lofty but disdainful abstractness, yet singularly forthrightly, have concluded that the American-generated sublimnity of your not infrequent postings of matters oblique, strangley Lovecraftian in nature but withal cross hatched with conservative heterogeneity, bids fair to articulate another corollary of the sober disavowal of the role of Leftist ideology….

    This is the sort of stuff that my college teachers referred to as abstruse, sophomoric pretension, worthy of at best a D-, and hardly worthy of the direct English language.

  • Porcell

    Feldman, at 16, you might try to reduce that arch language to terms that we ordinary mortals can understand.

    For example:…4 of every 5 urbane Harvard scholars with lofty but disdainful abstractness, yet singularly forthrightly, have concluded that the American-generated sublimnity of your not infrequent postings of matters oblique, strangley Lovecraftian in nature but withal cross hatched with conservative heterogeneity, bids fair to articulate another corollary of the sober disavowal of the role of Leftist ideology….

    This is the sort of stuff that my college teachers referred to as abstruse, sophomoric pretension, worthy of at best a D-, and hardly worthy of the direct English language.

  • Porcell

    Winston, it has to be stronger stuff than medical marijuana.

  • Porcell

    Winston, it has to be stronger stuff than medical marijuana.

  • Louis

    Methinks it was deliberate…

  • Louis

    Methinks it was deliberate…

  • Joanne

    Back on July 13th, Andrew Seybold had an article in Forbes on the FCC currently proposed auction for 500 MHz of spectrum (sounds like something one might cough-up in the early morning) which he puts into perspective with an earlier aution of 700 MHz (set to come on-line by the end of this year). The title of his article is “More Broadband Spectrum: Who Benefits?

    http://blogs.forbes.com/investor/2010/07/13/more-broadband-spectrum-who-benefits/

    I find, that a better understanding of the economic situation of almost any news flap adds gravitas to the sturm and drang of it all; I usually go to Forbes for that.

    I’m nudging on this FCC broadband sale (Veith was really focussed on the wireless mic) because Andrew, toward the end of his article is rather negative about broadband’s ability to carry much more freight than it already does.

    He mentions some who believe in a new technology that will allow much higher quantities of data to dance along the airwaves from tower to device, but he puts little credence in the idea of mobile wireless taking over the “wired Internet” as the super-carrier of the future. Indeed, his whole article gives one a very good idea of just how crowded the radio spectrum is for mobil wireless traffic, and how close already it is to exhaustion.

    So, you see, I could be wrong, especially when speaking about the future.

  • Joanne

    Back on July 13th, Andrew Seybold had an article in Forbes on the FCC currently proposed auction for 500 MHz of spectrum (sounds like something one might cough-up in the early morning) which he puts into perspective with an earlier aution of 700 MHz (set to come on-line by the end of this year). The title of his article is “More Broadband Spectrum: Who Benefits?

    http://blogs.forbes.com/investor/2010/07/13/more-broadband-spectrum-who-benefits/

    I find, that a better understanding of the economic situation of almost any news flap adds gravitas to the sturm and drang of it all; I usually go to Forbes for that.

    I’m nudging on this FCC broadband sale (Veith was really focussed on the wireless mic) because Andrew, toward the end of his article is rather negative about broadband’s ability to carry much more freight than it already does.

    He mentions some who believe in a new technology that will allow much higher quantities of data to dance along the airwaves from tower to device, but he puts little credence in the idea of mobile wireless taking over the “wired Internet” as the super-carrier of the future. Indeed, his whole article gives one a very good idea of just how crowded the radio spectrum is for mobil wireless traffic, and how close already it is to exhaustion.

    So, you see, I could be wrong, especially when speaking about the future.

  • Anonymous

    What would the hearing impaired do if there is no wireless mic frequency space? I *cannot* hear with just hearing aids during the sermon, and that is one of possibly two or three things at every church service I have ever attended. If the wireless mics were to be incapacitated, I would seriously consider lowering my church attendance, as I get very frustrated if I cannot hear the sermon, and that being the only non-scripted part of the service. There is a lot of background noise that goes on. (I have sat through many services where there was a child making noise throughout the service.) Having extra assistance (headphones) during the service (sermon in particular) is a huge help in actually hearing the Word of God. Simply talking louder or removing sound-dampening material is not enough. If there is an echo, it is more distraction. If there is no Communion at church and I cannot hear what the sermon, what would be the point of going to church?

  • Anonymous

    What would the hearing impaired do if there is no wireless mic frequency space? I *cannot* hear with just hearing aids during the sermon, and that is one of possibly two or three things at every church service I have ever attended. If the wireless mics were to be incapacitated, I would seriously consider lowering my church attendance, as I get very frustrated if I cannot hear the sermon, and that being the only non-scripted part of the service. There is a lot of background noise that goes on. (I have sat through many services where there was a child making noise throughout the service.) Having extra assistance (headphones) during the service (sermon in particular) is a huge help in actually hearing the Word of God. Simply talking louder or removing sound-dampening material is not enough. If there is an echo, it is more distraction. If there is no Communion at church and I cannot hear what the sermon, what would be the point of going to church?

  • Porcell

    Feldman, at 23, you remain obscure, though admittedly amusing.

  • Porcell

    Feldman, at 23, you remain obscure, though admittedly amusing.

  • Tom Hering

    The FCC is behind this? Hmm. The switch to digital broadcasting for television wasn’t very long ago. We antenna users got more channels – sometimes. And terrible reception – almost all the time. Even with upgraded antennas. Imagine being unable to watch a program because it’s windy outside! (Yes, the wind interferes with digital reception.) The FCC didn’t thoroughly fail-test the new broadcast system before implementing it. Lord only knows what troubles their new decisions will bring to users.

  • Tom Hering

    The FCC is behind this? Hmm. The switch to digital broadcasting for television wasn’t very long ago. We antenna users got more channels – sometimes. And terrible reception – almost all the time. Even with upgraded antennas. Imagine being unable to watch a program because it’s windy outside! (Yes, the wind interferes with digital reception.) The FCC didn’t thoroughly fail-test the new broadcast system before implementing it. Lord only knows what troubles their new decisions will bring to users.

  • Porcell

    Feldman, you could be a valuable contributor to this blog should you be more clear and direct with your views.

  • Porcell

    Feldman, you could be a valuable contributor to this blog should you be more clear and direct with your views.

  • Tom Hering

    Every blog I’ve participated in has at least one contributor who likes to be mystifying. It gets old pretty quick.

  • Tom Hering

    Every blog I’ve participated in has at least one contributor who likes to be mystifying. It gets old pretty quick.

  • http://lutherama.blogspot.com Dr. Luther in 21st Century

    I love the over the ear wireless mike, as a preacher and liturgist. I used to use the one that clipped onto the alb but there was never a good place. You would tend to get rubbing noise as the mic moved over the fabric and if you moved your head from side to side sound quality would degrade significantly. As for those of us who don’t use the pulpit all the time don’t sell us short because there are a few lazy pastors out there who can’t bother to prep their sermons.

    I think people are making more of the story than its impact is really going to be. We run 8 wireless mics in our sanctuary and none of them are effected by the proposed changes in airwaves.

  • http://lutherama.blogspot.com Dr. Luther in 21st Century

    I love the over the ear wireless mike, as a preacher and liturgist. I used to use the one that clipped onto the alb but there was never a good place. You would tend to get rubbing noise as the mic moved over the fabric and if you moved your head from side to side sound quality would degrade significantly. As for those of us who don’t use the pulpit all the time don’t sell us short because there are a few lazy pastors out there who can’t bother to prep their sermons.

    I think people are making more of the story than its impact is really going to be. We run 8 wireless mics in our sanctuary and none of them are effected by the proposed changes in airwaves.

  • Tom Hering

    Feldman @ 30, nah. Just a general observation. Sorry. :-)

  • Tom Hering

    Feldman @ 30, nah. Just a general observation. Sorry. :-)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Feldman (@16), sorry, but Porcell is right (@19). Your comment is “abstruse, sophomoric pretension, worthy of at best a D-”. I mean, honestly, “boorish”? “Well understood”? “Bids fair to”? Who talks like that?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Feldman (@16), sorry, but Porcell is right (@19). Your comment is “abstruse, sophomoric pretension, worthy of at best a D-”. I mean, honestly, “boorish”? “Well understood”? “Bids fair to”? Who talks like that?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Feldman (@34), if I had put a ;) at the end of my comment (@33), would that mean that I had got it?

    Or should I have said “Bids fair to”? Who talks like that?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Feldman (@34), if I had put a ;) at the end of my comment (@33), would that mean that I had got it?

    Or should I have said “Bids fair to”? Who talks like that?

  • Steven T

    I just find it absolutly hillarious when people try to tell preachers ( God called, God anointed, God appointed) how they should preach… it just baffles me how some people actually believe they have a right to tell a preacher how to do his job. WOW!

  • Steven T

    I just find it absolutly hillarious when people try to tell preachers ( God called, God anointed, God appointed) how they should preach… it just baffles me how some people actually believe they have a right to tell a preacher how to do his job. WOW!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X