Internet at Competitions

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Ankit S.

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

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.

[Chadfrom308]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

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.

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)

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by Chadfrom308

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)

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.

[Chadfrom308]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

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.

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

[yash101]

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)

[MichelB]

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.

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by Chadfrom308

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

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.

Originally Posted by DELurker

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.

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.

[DELurker]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

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.

From the 2013 competition manual...

5.5.1.4 T04
Teams are not allowed to set up their own 802.11a/b/g/n/ac (2.4GHz or 5GHz) wireless communication (e.g. access points or ad-hoc networks) in the venue.
A wireless hot spot created by a cellular device would be considered an access point.

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.

[Nirvash]

Originally Posted by DELurker

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.

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.

[yash101]

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!

[EricH]

Originally Posted by yash101

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.

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.

[yash101]

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!

[Nirvash]

Originally Posted by yash101

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!

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

[DELurker]

Originally Posted by yash101

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!

That almost sounds like intentional trolling. 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...

The industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) radio bands are radio bands (portions of the radio spectrum) reserved internationally for the use of radio frequency (RF) energy for industrial, scientific and medical purposes other than telecommunications.[1]

The ISM bands were first established at the International Telecommunications Conference of the ITU in Atlantic City, 1947. The American delegation specifically proposed several bands, including the now commonplace 2.4GHz band, to accommodate the then nascent process of microwave heating;[2] however, FCC annual reports of that time suggest that much preparation was done ahead of these presentations.[3]

From the proceedings: "The delegate of the United States, referring to his request that the frequency 2450 Mc/s be allocated for I.S.M., indicated that there was in existence in the United States, and working on this frequency a diathermy machine and an electronic cooker, and that the latter might eventually be installed in transatlantic ships and aeroplanes. There was therefore some point in attempting to reach world agreement on this subject."

Radio frequencies in the ISM bands have been used for communication purposes, although such devices may experience interference from non-communication sources. In the United States, as early as 1958 Class D Citizens Band, a Part 95 service, was allocated to frequencies that are also allocated to ISM. [1]

In the US, the FCC first made unlicensed spread spectrum available in the ISM bands in rules adopted on May 9, 1985.[4][5]

Many other countries later developed similar regulations, enabling use of this technology.[citation needed] The FCC action was proposed by Michael Marcus of the FCC staff in 1980 and the subsequent regulatory action took 5 more years. It was part of a broader proposal to allow civil use of spread spectrum technology and was opposed at the time by mainstream equipment manufacturers and many radio system operators.[6]

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by yash101

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!

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?

Originally Posted by DELurker

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.

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.