Internet at Competitions

[DELurker]

Originally Posted by yash101

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.

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).

[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.

[Ankit S.]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

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.

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

[DELurker]

Originally Posted by EricH

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.

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 ...

[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.

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by yash101

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!

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.

[philso]

Originally Posted by yash101

I will have to say, all these 2.4GHz communication protocols are very poorly designed.

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?

Originally Posted by yash101

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

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.

[khanh111]

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?

[DELurker]

Originally Posted by khanh111

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?

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.

[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.