It's not just the need for amplification that drives the use of wireless mics, many times they want a (reasonably) good recording of the event. That's tough enough with wireless mics, and nigh impossible without them.

Maybe we can go after all of the 'pop' "artists" - like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Wonder what the RIAA would say about that.

Paris - because....

If you can't think of something new - charge people for something they already have.

I use Sure wireless kit in the UK, where it's using an unregulated chunk of radio spectrum, and comes with a note that basically says "If you get interference, tough luck". And it does. You need to carry a few 'free to use' transmitters on different frequencies when gigging and pick ones that work, or for big events, just hire a licenced set.

I fail to see the issue here, though: Sure sell kit which is illegal to use in the US because it uses whitespace (where available), and are complaining that making it continue to work illegally would make it more expensive than, say, the legal versions that use unregulated space, or (gasp!) the licence fee for a low power licence.

Considering the US radio restrictions are so slack for low power transmitters, can't companies like Sure pick a band that they _are_ allowed to use, and slap the standard "this may not work for you" sticker on it like they do in Europe?

There are a huge number of illegal sets available at markets all over the UK, that use 88-108MHz, but I've never seen SM58 printed on one!

You have just settled down for a quick nap while the 'Pastor' spews some Hellfire & Brimstone™ when the Methodists down the road breaks in with a bit of Happy Clappy sing song. Then the Catholics across the way over power them while they're swinging their tin of smoke and chanting in a language that died 1600 year ago. Then the Anglicans break in and _really_ put everyone to sleep.

Does this remind anyone else of that bit in Spinal Tap with the wireless guitar pickup at the Airforce base? :)