Internet at Competitions
 

My team has traditionally used a web application for our scouting application which has allowed our scouting head in the pits to access data from the stands.

However, we have enormous problems with internet access each year that we attempt to negate through use of various offline technologies.

We use 6 tablets, each with 4G internet access from AT&T in Portland (and Champs). However, at Portland, and especially Champs, the internet access will not work due to network congestion.

For other teams who use web apps, how do you access the internet?

Thanks!

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

We use a similar setup (4G tablets), but we've also got a 4G modem that has a bit better antenna if we really need it that we can wire into our tablets. Our scouting software has the ability to temporarily cache the data if it can't upload it to the database. It holds the data until a connection is established, then dumps it all at once.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I think that it would be wise to carry something like a 1W 4G antenna (if you can even get one). You'll be able to communicate with a tower possibly 80 to 100 miles away! Connect that into a switch and that can offer ethernet connectivity. That's where Windows tablets come in use! They have ethernet ports!

Otherwise, since you are running a webpage-based scouting app, just run the server at the competition! That is the reason why the scouting app I'm working on will be a fail. Even though I am heavily using WebCache to store the page, an internet connection will be required. Since you live in the West coast, like me, you might want to use Verizon or Sprint or ATnT. WiMax will give a 40 mile range! Even better, have a WiFi pack running a 16 Watt antenna (you'd have to build this yourself!) with you, and one copying your hotel's wifi! You'll get WiFi from anywhere in the city!

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

We actually queue the transactions which is different than caching the web page. We estimated last year that we could run several hours without a 4g signal. At worse case we could walk out to a hallway or even outside to flush the queue.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I think that it is time that FRC makes available a limited-use wireless network, only available to certain people! That would make internet access possible without causing too many robot network communication troubles!

Otherwise, why doesn't FRC special-order the radios to work on a special frequency? Maybe even a channel not used very often.

I have two routers at home, sitting next to each other. They used to fight over the signals, causing them to get very hot and keep on crashing. I changed the channel of one of the routers and now I get no problems!

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

And everything old is new again: http://team358.org/files/electrical/...Manual2007.pdf

FIRST moved away from custom radios to make it easier to utilize COTS parts/systems during competitions. Things might swing the other way soon enough.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Why in the world would you need Internet access for scouting? What is it you need from outside the venue?

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I mean a small difference, just in the antenna, like 2.6GHz instead of 2.4!

I want to design a scouting application that will allow every team to view the same results and use the same tools. The server will be at home to make sure everyone around the world can connect to it!

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I am speaking from FiM's side, which is WiFi is bad. Do NOT use it at competitions. Many things can and will go wrong, not for the users but the field people. They will get angry at you.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

First of all, do you mean FMS (Field Management System)? Also, you say, don't use WiFi in the competitions, but you don't really explain why. Also, yes, they will get angry at you, but it isn't a bad thing, like how you are making it sound. That is to just keep the fields working properly. WiFi is a thing that is quite useful in competitions because it will network devices together, allowing them to communicate. That is the reason why you use Bluetooth in competitions!
Bluetooth should be good as long as you aren't torenting a 16GB file (you'll get angry by the 3MBps max speed)!

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

FiM = FIRST in Michigan. Though I'm not sure which one he meant, now that you bring it up, but I'm fairly certain he meant FiM being from a Michigan team.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

At the Long Beach regional we've used Clear WiMax USB modems, with Cradlepoint routers and a wired network. Of course, this only works within a couple miles of a Clear (sprint) WiMax tower, and the bandwidth is not great.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Last year, to access our SVN server during competition, I shared my internet connection from my phone to my computer while in the pits.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

the max data rate is 14Mbps, 3 times as fast as my home's internet. The funny thing is that I live within the urban areas of PHX. My community is a tad newer so we have all the good technology.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Well it's a good way to scout with the possibilities of it.

Also it allows teams to make something cool with their app or web app using the internet.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Interference. That's why no WiFi. Field working properly is HUGE! You weren't around in 2012, I don't think--get your hands on a copy of the Einstein Report from that year, and see just what can go wrong if either the field or the robots aren't working properly.



FYI, all: From the 2014 Administrative Manual, Section 4.15, 3rd bullet:I'm guessing this replaces the WiFi restriction from 2013 and prior years.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

How would changing the antenna will change the bandwith that the radio operates in. In the radio systems that I worked on (precursor to WiFi), one would have to make a change in the radio itself to make that happen.

The FCC, a US government agency, manages the radio frequency spectrum in the US. The ISM bands that WiFi operates on are well defined by FCC regulations. By straying outside of the defined bandwidth, you may be interfering with some other radio system, possibly with very serious consequences for the operator of that system. Do it for long enough and someone from the FCC may visit you and slap you with a fine.


Why is it a superior way to scout?

Is the purpose of the team to compete at a tournament or to make cool phone apps or web apps?


The radio band can carry only so much data at any particular time. Would you rather it be data for controlling your robot on the field or data for scouting?

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

It opens a whole world of possibilities. If you have internet in the pits and in the stands, you can seamlessly and effortlessly transfer data to create comprehensive match strategies. In addition, you can talk to the scouts via chat and ask them for opinions and suggestions all from within your pit. It also helps with collaborative scouting, for something like CowScout, where you want multiple sources of data from different events.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I agree with the others:

FIRST made a decision to use WiFi.
Way back when....before the cRIO...I recall many conversations about how great WiFi would be.

Okay so we have WiFi.
On the field side you have Cisco, on the robot side to date: D-Link and monitoring for the lot on 5GHz spectrum.
There is monitoring on the 2.4GHz spectrum but it's hard to enforce it because that spectrum is typically a mess.

On the high side of the 5GHz spectrum you have bands assigned to radar.
Luckily I've yet to see a FIRST team deploy 5GHz radar on a robot :).

That said: if there are multiple fields and you are in the 5GHz WiFi bands you should stay out of range of the fields (read - just don't do it). There are only so many channels in that 5GHz WiFi band and it's *extremely* likely with anything that can bond 2 or more channels (for 300Mbps or greater) you will short change the field merely by existing. Plus that can cause chaos with the robot radios as they are capable of discovering that interloper network.

Now the issue starts turning into this: Apple devices are increasingly happy to use the 5GHz WiFi spectrum. So ad-hoc networks between Apple users on 5GHz are point and click (and mind you that's not even for Internet). Per the Einstein report more and more mobile devices are using chipsets with 5GHz WiFi support. All of those can click their way into becoming an issue and per that report have become an issue (the details of that have been covered at length).

All that said: when I helped propose a 2015 control system I intentionally proposed a secondary low frequency radio for field related traffic leaving all the WiFi spectrums available. The entire point was to prevent the field safety mechanism from disabling robots because of radio link level issues. I proposed to do this using 3rd party modules with FCC approval attached to them. This meant that you could swap the hardware modules and the sockets were attached to the MCU in such a way that a very wide selection of frequencies were available below 1GHz. That meant you could accommodate radio regulators everywhere on Earth merely by swapping those modules. Mind the point that whatever was on the WiFi spectrum was no longer my concern. If a team wanted to use 2.4GHz on their robot for their vision systems it would not matter. If a team wanted to use 5GHz on their robot for their crazy Theremin controller not my issue.

As it stands FIRST (speaking as a 3rd party) has a vested interest in not altering the 2014 field system because they have end-of-life Cisco gear that is expensive and likely a pile of D-Link radios they can waste. Not to mention I noticed that last year antennas were changed which added some cost. I also noticed some additional changes in the way WiFi spectrum use was monitored.

I have, in the past, had to ask teams to turn off their 5GHz WiFi near the field. I will not say whom. There was a WiFi router with an open network sitting literally next to the field. Please just do not do this. You have bluetooth and other choices. Heck if you are clever you have infrared. Do not risk making issues on the field merely because you have zeal to do something interesting. Situations like the Einstein report need to never happen again and now that it has been investigated I doubt anyone will be able to plead ignorance of the risk.

In the past at the Mount Olive district event WiFi in the 2.4GHz spectrum was available but it was swamped by people with their phones and just shear demand. In reality the same bandwidth throttling technology now in use on the fields would help with that...but I bet very few events have any Internet available that actually has controlled bandwidth usage because that equipment adds cost (yes it can be done with a PC but most people just buy the finished product and have no interest in hacking it themselves). So with that all said: I personally am in favor of offering teams Internet access - by twisted pair ethernet in the pits. This has the distinct advantage of consuming zero radio spectrum unless the event coordinators decide to backhaul the traffic with WiFi. Still bandwidth controls should exist. However it should be much easier to reliably cap any team's Internet traffic if they are wired to the network as there should be much less risk of packet loss. For the teams this would mean they could use bluetooth or cellular near the field and dump their data at zero risk to the venue at the pits (these days there is way more than enough cheap storage to buffer up data in a smartphone).

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

What you are saying is true. It does not answer my question regarding what your priorities are. As I stated earlier in my post, the WiFi bandwidth can carry only so much data. Do you want to use it to control your robots or do you want to use it chat and pass around data about robots that would kill on the field if they could be made to operate? This is an engineering competition. In engineering, one has to make tough choices based on one's priorities.


This is also true. The data rates could then much higher than what you could achieve with WiFi. It would also take a lot of work to set up properly. The type of equipment used to create a such network is not typically meant to be moved around and I suspect that after some time, some of the connections would become flaky and teams would complain loudly here.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I think that that's when you build a backpack with a router (with wireless off), connected to a battery. Then, you have ethernet cables connected to the router, coming out of the bag. Also, use the Computer as a router. Set up ICS in Windows and just use the router as a switch.

Otherwise, just buy an ethernet switch!

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Here's why - FIRST has asked teams nicely NOT to use wifi at events as it interferes with the Field. Yes, ticking off the FTA is a bad thing. They are already stressed enough without your punk team deciding the rules don't apply to them for WHATEVER reason you are using to justify it.

Frankly, I'm appalled that you're so easily discussing interfering with the field. But I'm more annoyed at how easily you discount the impact your actions will have on the volunteers who will face the repercussions. Because when the field doesn't work nobody is going to come to you, they'll go to the FTA and then the FTA will have to spend an hour of their time hunting down your stupid wifi network while listening to people blame them/NI/Cisco.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

FIRST is deadly serious about the Wifi issue. They had Wifi sniffers at the champs tracking down people who were setting up Wifi hotspots. And every event I went to they tell teams repeatedly to turn off any wifi they set up. After the fiasco of 2012 they are not in the mood to have that happen again and trust me you do not want to have happen to you what happened to the dude who was causing mischief that day.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

This topic has been beaten to death in numerous other threads. Do a search, you'll find them.

As for the WIFI, I agree that offering it would provide many benefits, not limited to teams being able to use the internet, but also to less interference with the field because teams aren't setting up their own connections.

That being said, it's not on the teams to bring their own 4g hotspot and router and set up their own network. It's on FIRST and the event staff to allow it and set it up. Please don't break the rules, the FTA and field staff have a very difficult job to do, and they don't need teams and individuals causing them numerous delays to the event schedule because they decide to do something unwise.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

All of that is true, IF you use Wi-Fi. As many other posters have noted, there are plausible Wi-Fi alternatives that works just as well, if not better. In engineering, one has to make tough choices, or be smart about the design and have all the features you want.

To answer OP's original question, I would try sanddrag's method. It has successfully worked with us in the past and is fairly easy to set up. If you can't use the internet, which might be the case this year, try an offline server running on WAMP.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Considering we move the actual electricity in the pits over and over I fail to see how this is any worse.

In point of fact you need a managed switch or switches with adequate ports. It does not need to be faster than 10Mb. Maybe VLAN everyone from each other. Get a load balancer if you can or make one. We already move the load balancer and switches in the Scorpion cases with the field (over and over). Maybe it needs a UPS like the Scorpion case or maybe not.

Then we just need transit to plug into which from the perspective of the field crew is no different than what they and the streaming folks need.

True but long before that happens the field crew should see this if they are paying attention to the gear they have. Plus when I work a field I bring my own gear and put it around.

They are still causing an impact and it shouldn't be going on: otherwise they'll see me wandering around like a hunting dog fox hunting them. I used to provide engineering work to a WiFi security company so I won't be easy to shake.

I have seen FTAs so busy they don't have time to deal with this. The issue with not stepping on it is that the more people do it the less they perceive the consequence and clearly real risks to all of FIRST exist.


On a different note:

I noticed last year that FIRST started off with a single channel on each radio effectively limiting each robot. This limitation did not matter because the load balancer gave each robot less than that for bandwidth on the field side anyway. As the 'christmas tree' issues continued I noticed FIRST started using both channels again on the premise that would resolve this issue (the idea apparently being that at power-up the D-Links were flooding the available channel and then failing without channel bonding available).

FIRST must realize at this point that, just like 2.4GHz WiFi, the days of using 5GHz WiFi like this are limited. Between the number of access points and client network cards from a vast array of manufacturers there are far too many permutations between the teams, the venues and the spectators to patrol away all the risks. At this point I've yet to see an example of the field WiFi security not seeing 2.4GHz spectrum filled with far too many sources of interference at a given venue. Sooner or later the 5GHz spectrum which by default is depended upon will look just like that. At some point FIRST will start to encounter situations where infrastructure wireless systems from nearby sources are using 4 channels or even more for reasons that FIRST has no control over and there just are not enough channels as the number of fields at use at one time increases. I figure FIRST can expect reasonable compliance from teams. Maybe some compliance from the venues. I think it is going to be *very* difficult to control non-aligned spectators. Probably impossible to control nearby infrastructure wireless users. That was the reason I proposed sitting on radio frequencies that were easier to patrol and harder for every 'joe blow' to just wander into.

I would hate to see a situation where some unsuspecting person brings in a device that manages to impact the field access for all or some robots at a single event and cause a problem difficult to reproduce elsewhere. I am not confident at all that such a circumstance will be caught in a way that does not impact team rankings (even if for a short while).

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Yash

Think this through. Please! What if the interference you produce causes one or more robots on the field to malfunction? What if an alliance lost a match because of it? What if an alliance lost Einstein because of it? What if your team, or one of your friends teams, was on that alliance? These are NOT hypothetical questions!

Did anyone notice that the robots on the practice field are required to run with ethernet tethers? Maybe the do that to prevent interference on the actual competition field. Please don't make arguments about "being far enough away not to cause interference" unless you are able and willing to prove it by doing a comprehensive survey of the competition venue like what the cell phone companies do to select cell sites.


It is not impossible. It is just even more work for the people setting up. It is not too hard to find volunteers to help run power cords and check that they work.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

To get back to the OP's question:

We simply run our stuff locally, hosted on a laptop (WAMP, Node.js, etc.). We have old D-Link bridges (pre-2012) that are no longer legal/in use, so we use them in bridge mode (the same as if you were using a tethered robot) with wired ethernet connections with static IP addresses. We can link up to 4 scouting laptops in this fashion (four clients if you're not using a dedicated machine to host).

If you're using data in your app from the Internet, see if there is a way to cache it in your application. If you're using PHP/Node.js, there are easy ways to serialize objects--PHP has built-in serialization and supports JSON, Node.js has JSON, etc. I'm not familiar in any way with Ruby, but it doesn't seem too hard to serialize there either.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Just install DD-WRT x86 on a laptop with a powerful antenna! That'll hold all that bandwidth! You'll have an actual processor instead of a 240MHz ARM!

Doing that will say good bye to the possible hiccups in the network infrastructre if you don't want to pay a thousand dollars for a router!

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I agree with what some others have been saying. It hurt to see robots from the stands on Einstein 2012 (Einstein 2012 official report) just sitting there, doing absolutely nothing, to see a season's worth of effort and work end anticlimactically. And I'm sure it was even worse for the teams on the field. I would much rather see robots working to their potential on the field than have chat messages between the pit and stands. Could it be useful, yes, but I don't think it outweighs the dangerous possibilities of interference.

Besides, I can practically guarantee that no matter how effective a web based app is (we had developed one that we could use last season) you will still have to have a face-to-face strategy meeting before alliance selections anyway, because it's just difficult to communicate full ideas and tactics through. I feel like taking that part out would be killing half the fun and excitement of the strategic aspect of competition. I just don't see too much advantage to it. It could lead to miscommunication, etc.

tl;dr Internet at competitions is something that needs some time before it can develop into something that can SAFELY be widely used to benefit. FIRST has asked nicely, let's honor that.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

That is not how the RF Spectrum works. You can't just throw more power at it to solve all the issues. There is a finite amount of bandwidth that can be squeezed into each frequency range. Throw in interference from multiple devices that may or may not play nicely with each other and you are in for a mess. On top of that, general purpose equipment will NEVER be faster than specialized equipment (like the Cisco routers) even if the general processor is an order of magnitude faster. There are good reason why quality equipment costs a lot of money.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I would not define any FRC situation as using 'heavy loads' of bandwidth. If your scouting database requires a data connection of anything more than just a slight few mbps, you are probably doing it wrong.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Deetman's point has more to do with all performance factors and the cost for that performance than a mere simple partial quantity.

For example:

You could get Zebra for Unix as a Cisco-like router built from a PC.
or
You could get a real Cisco router.

Now...for around $2,000 you could get a Cisco router suitable for a T1 PRI interface to the Internet (about 1.544Mbps) with the module containing the CSU/DSU.

A PC with all the parts to make this work is not a much better deal.

There is a strange point however: let's say you have cheap high bandwidth to use like say 150Mbps to the Internet (a real 150Mbps say on an OC3 fiber circuit). Keep in mind 'cheap' in this definition is thousands (in some cases tens of thousands of dollars) a month.

The suitable Cisco equipment to harness that might be quite expensive. However this is cheap transit. You don't really care so much that it's 99.99% up. You just want to use it.

So you slap some PCs on it with PCI Express cards and you accept that the performance might be touch and go for the major savings in price.

Back to FIRST:

FIRST is not really in the business of being an ISP or phone company.
They need it to work in a way that qualified (but volunteer) folks can handle it and not be so unusual that it becomes dependent on a single person.
If FIRST needs hardware for say wired Internet they are dividing what is likely between 1Mbps and 40Mbps link between 20-100 teams.

Used - but quality - gear from Cisco is available for cheap that can handle 10Mbps ports to the teams with a nice uplink speed back to the a single higher speed switch. Put the slower switches out near the teams in the pits. Run the uplinks from the various pit areas to a the higher speed switch. Then put whatever traffic control system that can be afforded at that point with either a router or...if the venue has it already...just plug it into the venue network.

Even if someone uses a PC as long as it can be supported (say Untangle or something like that) to rate limit and filter the result would be adequate - but still the Cisco hardware when it comes to hardening will outperform. It's possible with Untangle to pump 200k connections and several hundred megabit of traffic. Rate limiting (using tagged packets and VLANs) says you share what you have and it is unlikely you'll get a huge Internet connection with the field and streaming going on anyway.

That is more than enough for a scouting application. In point of fact: many businesses might be thrilled to have even that.
Keep in mind: it's better FIRST put that Cisco gear for that is purpose in the field than Untangle.
You loose your scouting app that stinks. You loose your field because a single power supply failed and that is bad.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

1306 sets up a network for scouting; this allows us to backup our data offsite as well as being essential for CrowdScout so that other teams can get data updates.

We tether a phone with an (unlimited) data connection over Bluetooth to Computer A.

Computer A is set to share this internet connection from the Bluetooth PAN to Ethernet, which is fed to a router (with WiFi disabled). The router shares it among our network, which is entirely Ethernet. (Ethernet allows us to expand the network by using switches if needed.)

Sharing files on our local network can get complicated because we run across Windows, Linux, and OS X. Generally we set up a SMB/SMB2 share hosted off of Computer A if we need to exchange many files.


The system is very scalable and incredibly reliable - only one wireless link is used, so there's rarely issues with interference (as compared with a Bluetooth many-device network). We're looking at getting rid of that link, too, using a USB OTG cable and USB-to-Ethernet adapter.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

So if I am understanding this correctly, we cant use the Internet at all during competition anymore? Even over 3G/4G?

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Not commenting on the legality of setting up a 3/4G modem, but that rule does seem overly silly, since any phone with a dataplan breaks "or attempt to connect to the Internet." just by being on the network.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I believe FIRST means WiFi or anything that could interfere with the field traffic. I agree it could be worded a little better. Or maybe they actually meant 3G and 4G as well, but I doubt it.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Speaking for only myself here:

I do not believe that FIRST extends that rule to 3G/4G.
If they intend it that way, then I should hope it is limited as a rule applying to the team.

In other words: if 3G/4G data service is not allowed it is within respect to team efforts (like scouting applications).

I say this because: I have global planetary responsibilities (in short this is no joke and it could impact everyone, everywhere). Frankly if there is service I need to be available. I can cooperate only so far with this. I can check in occasionally. I can and do take the day off while at a competition. However I can not allow FIRST to create a situation that could lead to a level of harm they can't possibly have liability insurance adequate for.

3G/4G to a phone client does not present a risk to the field. Turning on a WiFi hot spot on your phone might.

Frankly I think any interpretation of that rule to prevent 3G/4G client access for people that are in situations such as myself will literally cripple FIRST (consider the corporate sponsorship: the number of FIRST mentors, volunteers, organizers and parents that are in situations like myself). The only way that makes sense with regard to 3G/4G is to cut down on teams with team efforts to use the Internet. In short teams should not write Internet applications but individuals data usage on 3G/4G as clients only on that network is okay.

Besides this would be entirely unenforceable. The number of smartphones by nonaligned spectators directly next to the field with active network synchronization on 3G/4G would be large. FIRST would have to tell every spectator to turn off their phones and even then there would be people that would not comply. Start weeding them out and quickly it will hurt FIRST's reputation.

At the point that FIRST as an organization goes >that far< stop playing around with WiFi for critical field functions because it is manufacturing many problems where there need not be any. Going >that far< actually has a tangible cost in reputation and likely support. So whatever it ends up costing FIRST if they had to make that leap balance that against the potentially much higher risk of financial impact.

Do not interpret this is a threat. Interpret it as what it is. I am an engineer this is my observation of the risk.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I think that it is way too much of a hassle. Just modify your scouting sheet to work offline! I mean, if your can figure out how to do it online, then you can figure out how to make it offline

Instead of sending things through the internet, write the info down on paper and give them to someone who can put it in a computer! It's not too hard to do that!

I had my scouting setup like this (although we never really used it because we didn't do too well this year):
1.Everyone goes on their phone and submits a google form with all the parameters.
2.Google Spreadsheets automatically gets the data
3.Google Spreadsheets sorts the data and averages everything and makes graphs
4.The scouter (or the drivers) pulls up the interface (a sheet with a spot to type in the team you want) and gives us the info on the other teams

Now I could make it where people just write down the info on paper and have one person compile it into a sheet in excel or the new google offline spreadsheets and it will do the same thing

Besides, what's the point of robotics if you are going to be on the internet all day? It is actually fun to watch! (unless it's your team, then it's nerve wrecking):yikes:

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending who you ask), we've gotten to the point in FRC that offline scouting isn't going to cut it. It comes down to teams using scouting for more than a pick list for the finals because teams now have the ability to use scouting information for upcoming matches. My team has been pushing this for a couple years now, and we've been very successful in using scouting data to win matches in which our alliance was the real underdog. Just scouting for a pick list is severely underutilizing the data.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

What does the online scouting provide that offline cant? I mean, unless you are putting the data for everyone to see on your website, I can't think of one

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

In this case, I did want to put data on a site, available to everyone. Having just limited internet access can help teams with less members, teams that need scouting help, etc. Using an online service allows you to use a powerful service. If I ever get my scouting app done, at the end of the match, the team can push a button for the server to process the data, build graphs and do a side-by-side comparison between different teams, and sort through teams. The software would allow you to sort through teams so that, if you are in a big competition with many high-scoring robots, the software will help you get what you need in a few minutes, a much shorter time than paper-and-pencil is! That is one advantage of internet-based CrowdScouting (as team 1306 is working on). Also, this will allow one to write a program to automatically fetch the scouting data to a tablet in the pits, meaning that a student won't have to walk all the way to the stands to get data!
Even something like google drive's spreadsheets can do the same thing (though since I am not a spreadsheet hero, I think it would be hard to make a nifty interface)

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I'll admit I didn't have time to read every single reply so this was probably said before but...setting up a WiFi network can and will interfere with field-robot communitcations, but I also see the use of having access to wireless communications (notice I say "wireless communications" NOT "WiFi") in the pit/stands. Bluetooth is a perfectly good option, also, a small server/file sharing system, with a router running at a distinctly different frequently from ALL field communications could work, but Bluetooth seems to be the better option by far as to not creating interference. I am not aware of any FRC rules pertaining to Bluetooth use but I have not read the entire rule book.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

No, that has been in there for a while. It means don't try to arrange to have an internet connection opened at the venue (i.e. call Verizon and have them connect you to their network for the weekend) Basically, don't cause a headache for the venue.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Slightly off topic; when using bluetooth for scouting, how much of a problem is interference from other bluetooth devices? We're pumping some money and time into a bluetooth based scouting system this year, and I'll be sad if we find out that it won't connect through the various wireless noise.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I'm sure this will only help the topic wander further afield, but ...

Anything that operates in the 2.4GHz or 5GHz range has historically been forbidden due to the interference possibility with the 2.4GHz and 5GHz field communications. This includes WiFi networking (IEEE 802.11), Bluetooth (IEEE 802.15.1), ZigBee and associated protocols (IEEE 802.15.4), and any other thing (including 2.4GHz wireless telephones) that operates within the 2.4GHz and 5GHz spectrum. The FCC has only allocated so much space in the ISM bands for available use, and WiFi takes up almost the entire width. Yes, there are several channels available, but they all can overlap and interfere with the other 2.4GHz protocols.

The upshot is that, if any 2.4GHz communications that aren't the field communications are permitted, then it will just be a matter of seconds before someone, whether on purpose or not, will start consuming frequency spectrum capacity meant for the field communication bandwidth. Easiest solution: Ban all 2.4GHz communications.

3G/4G operate outside the ISM bands in the 2.4GHz (barely) and 5GHz frequencies, and, therefore, are not contributors to interference. Thus, it makes no sense to restrict them (plus it would be completely irrational and impossible).

With the advent of flash drives and SD cards, try making your app be able to communicate via them instead of wirelessly.

As for operating outside of the ISM bands, do not do it without an FCC license. You have no idea what you could possibly be interfering with and it's an all-around bad idea.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Well, that is a possibility, though bluetooth is low-power and meant for short-distance communications. However, I'm pretty sure that you will be able to communicate with devices on the other side of the field!

I was thinking, if I can get this scouting application made, should I contact the event coordinator about if they would let me set up a low-power hotspot on the other side of the building from the stands, to allow teams to see the stats, but have no internet connection? I think that a 4mW Tx won't reach the stands if it is on the other side of the building!

That way, I can have teams ask for a password (I won't have it as a public AP), to get free inet? I think that could be an idea (as long as I can age FRC approval! Also, is WiFi allowed in the pits, to communicate with the robot?

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

They won't give you that approval. From what it seems like, this year they're simplifying the rule about no WiFi by saying no internet. The only WiFi that is allowed is the WiFi on the field. Robots in the pits have to be tethered(which has been a rule for a number of yours). No wireless anything at all is allowed; the way I see it is, treat the FIRST event like you're going to a sporting event; keep the internet to 4G/3G/Mobile networks on your phone.

Some past instances (aside from Einstein 2012) was one year at the Finger Lakes Regional, RIT's network was messing with the field, so they had to shut that down (I'm not sure the exact specifics; someone who was there can probably clarify). Also, I read reports that at Championship last year, FIRST had people with WiFi scanners to "track down" anyone who had a hotspot enabled. Plus the numerous times at competitions where the announcer says something like, "Whoever is running the WiFi network 'BlahBlahBlah' please shut it down".

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I think I should remind people that near field communications exists.
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/pho...r-phone-948410
It's around 13.5MHz and no license is required.
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com...unication4.htm

Also you could craft a way to communicate using QR codes.
Put it on the display and scan it with the smart phone: zero wireless.
You can encode - a lot - of data just like that.
Picture a computer monitor used for all QR code dots

In both cases the Internet is not involved.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I don't see the rules stating that, they simply refer to internet. So if your local bluetooth/othernonwifi network doesn't have a device to act as a mobile modem it should be legal by the current rules.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

You are right there, as far as I am aware, bluetooth and other non-wifi, is allowed. Not sure about 3G/4G/Mobile networks though.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

What did happen to the guy/what was really happening? The Einstein report was rather vague with that part (perhaps for good reason, but I'm still wondering).

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Whenever I use a hotspot (I rarely use one), I have the antenna set to <1mW, so you walk a few feet away and you lose connection, so that would be unlikely to cause any interference (except for the people around me)! However, let's just ditch wifi and use something like BT. As far as I know, I haven't heard of any restrictions on 3G/4G, especially because they operate on completely different frequency bands! Just as a teaser, has a single team ever used ZigBee to communicate internet connection? That would be a cool project.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

The black painted Segway X2 circled and got him. :cool:
Like little wheeled black SUV and helicopters.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Lifetime ban from FIRST events. IIRC that was said in the letter from the team of the mentor (or was it anonymously signed by the mentor himself?)

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

If you read the email that accompanied the Einstien report vague was the last thing it was. Here is the gist of what happened and the results:

What happened:
Random guy found a way to use Wifi to cause interference in robot communication that affected the outcome of Einstien matches

Consequences:
Random guy is in no way allowed any further contact with, interaction with, or participation in FIRST in any capacity. Essentially he is banned from FIRST for life.

Excerpt from the letter from Jon Dudas sent to all teams...

"Additionally, Einstein match play suffered from an intentional act of interference. The person who engaged in this interference was associated with an FRC team, but not with any team on the winning alliance. For personal reasons, this individual opted to resign. In addition, FIRST has prohibited the individual from participating in any future FIRST event as a coach, mentor, volunteer or in any other capacity. This is the penalty associated with an intentional act of interference."

http://www.usfirst.org/node/2426

And this is one of the reasons why Wifi is not allowed at events in any capacity.

To the OP:
I agree with the other posters on most of their points. The volunteers at all events are just that, volunteers. They catch a lot of grief over match play, things not working exactly the way they worked for teams at home, the occasional FRC participant who doesn't want to follow the rules, setup, breakdown, etc. etc.

While the majority of the time their experiences are positive I can tell you that there are individuals who are actively rude and ugly to the volunteers (adults and students alike). I speak from experience because my students have participated as volunteers and I have witnessed some unfortunate incidents.

If you want to do this use your 3/4G devices all day long (we use laptops and USB drives for simplicity) but please do not expect/ask the volunteers for another thing to setup, configure, troubleshoot for every team that is having problems, and then breakdown. Their jobs and time are already busy enough with all the other duties they are asked to perform. If you think you are tired at the end of an event put yourself in their shoes, they are the first in the doors in the morning, the last out the doors at night, and spend several days before teams arrive getting everything ready for us and then cleaning up after we leave.

Thank you to all those who have volunteered at an event, you guys do a great job!

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Yup, we do do that. We keep a tablet in our pits so our drive team can use real data to figure out how to play their next match. For example, this year, we could see where opponents were best at shooting from as well as where they're not good at shooting from (and same with or alliance partners). We know where to put defense and know where everyone should shoot from to maximize our shooting percentage.

Please show me this rule, because the rules I've read have specifically forbidden anything operating in IEEE 802.11 and no rules against 802.15.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

As a guy that's helped set up the fields and the pits I appreciate that.
However I'd like to say that - planned - installation of say a wired network would just be another task and if enabled to do it I would do it.

On the other hand - unplanned - having to chase teams with WiFi that know better around I do not welcome. It invites a confrontation that is just not necessary and being unplanned it is unwelcome.

In point of fact I believe the vast majority of 'confrontations' I've seen are from small but important things that can be addressed and removed with adequate communications. Sure someone might be better or worse off for resolution but no one is better for letting that fester.

Not quite what happened.
He found a hole and after they refused to address it he exploited it again.

Finding the problem: not the problem.
Bringing the problem to someone's attention (could have been done in a more polite and responsible manner): sort of a problem.

Opening the door to becoming an interloper on the field < entirely unacceptable.

Once he knew it was a problem and was asked to stop it was time to comply.
So the message here: if they ask you to stop - you stop.

Watch carefully - when Al says don't use hot glue on electronic motor controls I do not.
It does not matter if I agree - do not turn a simple disagreement into a war that has far reaching consequences.
On the other side of that: if someone tells FIRST respectfully there's a problem - they need to listen (usually they do).
FIRST did investigate the problem at great expense so obviously they are listening to this now.

(Keep in mind the goal is to evolve - mistakes happen - let's try to keep the disasters to a minimum.)

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

The answer all the questions about getting match data to the drivers in the pits from the stands: The past 2 years at Worlds, where the walk in quite a distance, 68 solved the problem by printing the sheet out in the stands and then taking a picture and emailing it to the drive coach. It's fast, efficient, and doesn't interfere with the fields WiFi. We do our scouting the old pen and paper way, focusing on making our sheets easier to use during the match and easier to enter in the computer rather then wireless communications between the scouters and the computers.

Thank you =] And I pass that message along to all the other FIRST volunteers, keep up the good work!

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

What would be the fate of a system using NFC (Near Field Communication) also known as Android Beam (Samsung Beam is even cooler, but other devices are available) available on all newer Android devices running Jellybean (and possibly further back than that). File transfer is orders of magnitude faster than bluetooth but works in nearly the same way. As the name implies it requires proximity to function, but I have been 30+' away from somebody and it still worked.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I have seen nothing that would prohibit ZigBee in the 902-928 MHz band (channels 1-10, iirc ... channels 11-26 are in the 2.4GHz range and would interfere with WiFi).

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

From the 2013 competition manual...
Since they specifically mention 2.4GHz, I would assume that anything which looked like a 802.11 network in the 2.4GHz ISM range would be treated as one. This assumption would include both 802.15.1 and 802.15.4. Given what happened to the Einstein guy (discussed elsewhere in this thread) in 2012, I would not want to even hint at arguing with the FTA over the difference between 802.11 and 802.15.4 networks, especially since they occupy the same frequency space and can (and do) interfere with each other.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Ah ok that makes more sense, thanks for the clarification.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Actually, I think they are trying to keep people from getting temporary land lines or internet lines run for them for the event because at many venues these services are available to the events they host at additional significant cost. They are also trying to discourage people from jumping onto local existing wireless networks and swamping them away from people who have a legitimate use for them (such as the router owners).

The WiFi restriction will most likely be in the competition manual again.

EDIT: Yes, what Ankit S said two minutes ago ...

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I would think the fact they mentioned 2.4GHz or 5GHz, is that Wifi can operate in both, covers the bases with teams trying to use any kind of wifi.

Also adding on the fact that from the documents I have seen (and can quickly find) the control system on the field uses the 5GHz range, which would be unaffected by anything in the 2.4 range. So in ideal situations, a 2.4Ghz network will not cause issues with network traffic for robots.

Since such is the case it may seem silly for FIRST to ban Wifi outright, but it is much easier for them to simply outlaw it then to risk the chance of someone accidentally forgetting to shut 5GHz off in an access point.
Another reason I've read but can't tell how much effect it would have, is that the access points on the robots would still see SSIDs in the 2.4GHz range, which if there are enough of, may cause issues with the AP trying to keep track of them all and hurt performance.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I will have to say, all these 2.4GHz communication protocols are very poorly designed. I am pretty sure that research could have been done to give a different frequency (even just a nuance will make a difference) to BT and ZigBee.

One thing that I don't understand is why you get a higher bandwidth on WiFi than Bluetooth, same for BT and ZigBee!

So, with 2.4GHz knocked out, and Cell(3G/4G) being expensive, what is another possibility, other than wire? Bring a WiMax/HSPA+/LTE/EDGE, etc. router?

That would be quite classic if a team decided to bring along an LTE router!

To make things easier (or harder if you see it in a different way), how could I link my iPod with my Cell Phone? It has no wifi. Just BT and 3G!

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Easy for you to say. For that matter, easy for anybody to say. NOT easy to design, or to research/redesign!

And no, I don't know for sure how hard it would be--I'm a mechanical engineer, not a communications engineer.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Yeah. That's totally true. However, I still have doubts on how much research was done to change the frequencies into less-used ones! Other than that, they seem quite stable!

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

There are only so many bands that you don't need a licensees to broadcast. 2.4Ghz is one of them.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

If it's an Android smartphone (I don't know about iOs or Windows Phone 8, and the answer is 'it's impossible' if it's not a smartphone), you could root and use tether, or FoxFi for tethering (I feel like I read somewhere on XDA Developers that it no longer works...maybe that's just on 4.3+).

BUT

if you did do that at an FRC event, that would be illegal per last years rules, and probably illegal per this year's rules and is EXACTLY what FIRST had volunteers looking out for at Championship last year.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

As someone who designed chips that formed the core of spread-spectrum radio for one of the first ISM band radio-modems 25 years ago, I am rather offended by your comment. What are you basing your statement on?


Focus on your schoolwork so you can graduate from high school, earn an EE degree specializing in communications systems, get at least 5 years of R&D work experience in radio communications under your belt and you will understand.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

From what I am understanding of these posts.

1. Everyone has issues with internet at competitions, so my team isn't alone in these problems.

2. Using wifi (2.4GHz or 5GHz) potentially messes with the field, and in any case there is still too much congestion on that spectrum as well. (which is why wifi and bluetooth generally aren't used).

3. One solution is to buy a device that is able to use a tower that is a few miles away, and link the devices with ethernet cables.

4. Another solution (what my team does) is to use a dongle/tethering/router hookup in order to get the data.

5. Some people seem to not like the idea of web apps, and to each their own. I think the thread may be more beneficial if we stayed on the topic of how to get a steady internet connection.

Anything I missed?

What I want to know is how reliable 3 and 4 are. That's what my team is looking for. Some reliability (especially at champs, where even the mobile networks die) is a must in order push data to the servers. Any thoughts/comments?

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Here's a thought which skirts the ragged edge of one of the rules. Since FIRST Championships is a huge event with 55,000 attendees (or so, right?), could someone get Sprint to become a sponsor? I know from personal experience that they have mobile cellular towers that they deploy at NASCAR events, partly as a sponsor, partly to handle the increase in local cellular traffic. Could they deploy some of their NASCAR towers around the Championship venue as their sponsorship? This would improve the reliability of communications within the dome while giving 3G/4G capability.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

:ahh: That almost sounds like intentional trolling. :yikes: However, Google and Wikipedia are your friends. Look up IEEE 802 and realize how many working groups and (therefore) people are involved in all of this...

From Wikipedia...

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I can see others are offended by this and I can see why (at one time or another I was involved in the fundamental engineering to get here as well).
However, in fairness, he's a kid - he wants to understand - and he just doesn't know.
So instead of being annoyed I am going a different direction:

You have the luxury of seeing today the exact use of the technology and the ramifications of - and I will say this clearly - the misuse of this technology.

Do not say - well why didn't the designers design it better for this fringe case - because frankly this fringe case is just not that special.

TCP/IP is a general purpose protocol and in the past I've written *huge* posts on this forum about it's weakness in an application such as the way FIRST uses it.

WiFi was not designed with the intent to have so many people so close together using the spectrum. It's a fringe case. It's also the reason more spectrum will eventually be required and really FIRST is a trivial to that end result.

The fact that FIRST uses it - as I've written before in this topic - was probably at the time it started less of an issue because there was less opportunity for this sort of issue. Unfortunately this usage comes with a ticking timer. Eventually it *will* be impossible for FIRST to get adequate bandwidth with their current field.

FIRST can pass all the rules they like. Make all the demands they like. The fact that spectrum competition exists means that FIRST will eventually be overwhelmed and eventually this will become such an issue that even the FCC will have to work out alternatives for WiFi. However the FCC is designed to move slowly and FIRST is not big enough to push this issue.

All that said: FIRST has an investment in this technology. In 2015 they've made alterations. They can get better control over the details (like discovery of 2.4GHz networks when they use 5GHz by controlling the lower level software of the devices and being highly selective of the hardware). In the end there will come a time where FIRST will find itself in the void between the overuse of this technology and the slow methodical movement of the FCC.

In the meanwhile FIRST has setup a situation that will consume time and energy that in my opinion would just as easily be entirely avoidable if they put the critical field communications on licensed spectrum. If that field safety system is so very critical then it is worth the investment. For the rest, like sending video to the driver's station, use WiFi but make it an option. A vast number of teams have played happily every year without sending video and therefore by removing the field from the competition for spectrum. The spectrum the teams need for their video which they will now have less issue to get.

It makes far more sense for FIRST to get licensed operators to use spectrum than for that same request to be made of random people who are not qualified to be licensed. The system exists as it does to create this division. FIRST expects us as teams to comply with their rules why should FIRST buck a system designed by an authority impacting them?

That solves one problem but I can see a counter point to it.

Is FIRST really better off with people distracted by phones on the field?

I need my phone for critical communications only and really I don't even have a Facebook page. I am only on Twitter recently because I dealt with a person that gave me a good reason. How much will I Twitter in the future is likely almost zero.

I have no use for 'social media' as typically referenced because I prefer to ration my time to things of more immediate social impact - like FIRST. My posts are usually technical, hopefully help people and are more vital than talking about the latest 'hottie'.

That said each to their own. Unless that own distracts from the field and the movement of people in the area of that field. My suggestion earlier about providing wired Internet in the pits was loaded with the idea that it would be less inviting to be distracted by social media unrelated to anything really urgent if it was less convenient.

Other than for emergencies or in the exception it's vital to actual business what good reason should people in proximity to that field be distracted?

Course the counter point is that the loud music often is a distraction as well as it is designed to be.

If MAR or someone asked I bet we could get wired Internet in the pits for a relatively low cost. Whether or not a wireless (WiMAX, 3G/4G) back haul is really needed would be subject to experience with all the relevant venue and something that could be worked out. I suspect once it becomes obvious this can be done it will be that much easier to spread it around.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I'm surprised no one has mentioned using a 900Mhz point to point ethernet bridge to get scouting data from the stands to the pits. However, they are about $1000, so it's much cheaper to have two 4G devices.

I agree with others that FIRST is not in the business of being an ISP, especially to a bunch of kids. LOTS of issues there with web safety and liability, and no volunteer base to set this up and manage it at each event.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Are you talking about something like this?

That is some nice technology. "15 Miles of Range," "1.5Mbps data rate"

Just perfect for what we need, though the range is kind of overkill. Then, you could possibly use your hotel's wifi? :D <<==Not that good of an idea, but possible!

Yeah. That makes sense. I don't think FIRST will want to spend much effort in internet. It isn't one of their priorities. They have better things to be doing!

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

One can reduce the size and risk by reducing it to one table and rigging it so transactions are to a storage service. Then students with legit applications can upload and download from that point and retrieve from there externally. Like a bulkhead or prison :rolleyes: .

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I'll preface this by saying that I haven't read through this thread with the appropriate attention to detail, so please forgive me if this has been repeated but, I've also been looking into and talking to people about how to have a reliable internet connection at competitions primarily for the purpose of scouting - and if possible, the uploading of pictures/videos/updates to the web for those following at home and these are the routes that seem most feasible:

- Tethering through a 3G/4G/Cellular Data Device. Personally, I have a 3G/4G Laptop that's more or less attached to my hip during competition season. I bought it with the intent to use it for tethering throughout the build and competition season right before kick-off last year, and it hasn't let me down yet. I've got a 5GB data plan that I've only exceeded once (2013 Championship) and that was due in large part to streaming video for an hour or two. I've also used it to stream webcasts of an event while on the go, and it worked surprisingly well. If we were to integrate something like this into our scouting system as the access point/link device, odds are it'd be tethered via USB to one machine, and then all other machines networked via ethernet cables. I need to test this method a bit to see how well it actually works (and if I'll need a bridge, or if a bridge makes sense) but if you only need a computer or two on the net, it should be fine.

- Purchasing an array of Cell-Data enabled computers and/or USB modems. Neither of these methods is all that 'cheap', but depending on the amount you were planning on investing in devices, it might not be too bad. Something like a $300-$400 Chromebook would work perfectly with a Google-docs based system, and assuming that you don't need more than 2 or 3 of them, the hardware portion would come out to just over $1,000. The data plan could be the tricky bit, depending on what plan you'd need and the service provider, it could be as little as a few hundred dollars or as much as a few thousand. I haven't had the chance to research 'pay as you go' data plans too much, but if they're reasonable, they could be the best method.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I worry that we are doing ourselves as a social enterprise a disservice by creating barricade between those with money and those without.

A table with access enough to send data out to a specific storage location and down again, a storage location accessible from the Internet, could even be setup next to the field as long as it is not wireless.

We already do provide laptops with many of the updates teams require.

Creating a situation where teams must cover the costs of uploading valuable historic information and are discouraged from leveraging Internet technology seems a bad idea. To frame it a different way: NASA often buffers up data on their space vehicles to be sent when they can actually send it. Giving an opportunity to send the data should be a suitable equivalent issue.

I have to say that the Internet does give students the ability to achieve large incomes with a very low access cost. It seems a bad idea to create a situation that discourages students from learning to leverage that opportunity. The situation I proposed above would force the students to learn how to use the Internet in a way that they will have to learn important and valuable lessons. Personally I'd rather the gap be between those that know and those that do not, than those that have the toys and those that do not. Necessity is the mother of invention and this is supposed to be about opportunity. After all the gap between those that know and those that do not can be solved with education and access to...the Internet.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I'm just wondering, does FRC use WiFi jammers outside the field? This is a little off topic, but a WiFi jammer would keep the field working seamlessly!
Another off topic thing not worth making a thread about: Why is there a 7Mbps WiFi bandwidth cap? Don't they use N routers, with a capacity of 300Mbps? That would mean 75Mbps per robot connection! Even if they used WiFi A or G, they could get ~14Mbps!

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Not that I know about. The problem with using a WiFi jammer is that it would probably jam the field WiFi as well, which is the LAST thing you want to do! They do use WiFi sniffers to figure out who is running a network and ask them nicely to turn said network off.
Go read the 2012 Einstein Report. The cap wasn't placed until after that event.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I am currently reading it. It's quite interesting! That makes me think about how onboard image processing can be much more reliable than DS image processing! Have they tried a UPS battery built into the bridge and the cRIO to keep them up during voltage drops? I'm pretty sure that a good capacitor should also do the trick!

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Both the cRIO and bridge have dedicated outputs on the PDB which can regulate down to ~4.5V.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Yes. I agree! However, they can still commonly fail, especially here where the voltage isn't stable!

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I'm not sure you understand what he's getting at.

The PDB's dedicated outputs will continue to output the required voltage until the voltage coming in drops below 4.5 V or so. I can't remember hearing of a single failure.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

In the Einstein report, it was mentioned that a few teams kept having voltage sags and their robots kept rebooting

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

If a robot's battery voltage is sagging to the point where the PDB cannot power the Crio, there are massively bigger problems at hand.
Though, if the 12 to 5 volt converter for the radio is wired to the wrong outputs on the PDB, that may cause brownouts for the radio.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

I greatly appreciate his enthusiasm, energy and appetite for learning. If he is wanting to understand, it would be best for him to ask questions and apply his obvious enthusiasm and energy towards attempting to follow the advice given.

It is stating the obvious that it is not appropriate for anyone to make pronouncements and recommendations in this forum that cannot be backed up with a solid foundation of knowledge. Quite a few of his suggestions,in this thread and others, could have caused harm or danger to others who might not know better. I can understand why some other forum members are wondering if he is a troll.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Be sure you are correct before you raise a posse.
Encouraging that sort of thinking doesn't build a growing community.

Also take this tidbit of wisdom from a soldier friend of mine:
"The worst thing you can do is lose the trust of those that are loyal to you"

To your concern about the safety of others: only a fool takes everything they read on the Internet verbatim. After all paradoxically you question him but presume others will blindly follow him.

If this thought he is a troll is wrong - think carefully of the price.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Bluetooth operated in the 2.4GHz Range, The first channel starts at 2402 MHz and continues up to 2480 MHz in 1 MHz steps. So this could be a source of interference.

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

Thank you for the clarification. I was under the impression the individual found the hole and decided to randomly mess with people and was unaware that they had pointed it out to FIRST. And I completely agree with your comments on Al. I have often posted questions to him on Delphi to get a seasoned expert inspectors opinion! ;)

Re: Internet at Competitions
 

There are things worth having a heated debate about: things that do great harm to FIRST like interfering with the fields and radios.

There are things not worth having a heated debate about: whether or not hot glue to hold PWM wires is legal. It makes little difference as long as the need to hold the wires is acknowledged and an acceptable alternative is offered.

I often seem to be argumentative when in reality I just want clarity as to avoid further conflict. When a team shows up to events you are not always dealing with the same people. There can be inconsistency introduced and that is confusing and impacts the quality of performance for everyone. In this case Al is a resource that offers consistency because the inspectors generally answer to him as lead inspector. Although Al can't officially dictate rules like the GDC can it makes little sense to document a disagreement with him unless there is a real risk to make it worth it. That said I do want to thank Al for his time because his role is not an easy one.

It is important for FIRST to be consistent on some things. Interfering with the fields is one of them. If you know you can interfere you should not do it without FIRST's consent as a test. The same would be true as a spectator that is not aligned to a team. In this case at least there was something FIRST could extract as a form of punishment. As a spectator I guess the best they can do is take your name, information and toss you out of the venue.

I am not clear if there is an official response to this sort of interference in the future. At the moment it seems to be an optional response. With the field as it is I suspect that eventually FIRST will have to make some decisions about what is the proper response to a problem such as field interference so there is clarity on what is to be done. Otherwise I perceive the potential for conflict that is not managed with the guidance of FIRST from the top, down.