Slashdot Mirror
White Spaces Test "Rigged," Says Google Co-Founder Page
Davide Marney writes "As reported by the Washington Post, Google co-founder Larry Page claims that an FCC field test of white space wireless devices was 'rigged' to make the test device fail to detect wireless microphone broadcasts. A Google spokesman explained later that testers had hidden the wireless microphones within the same frequency as local television stations, preventing the test device from detecting them."
It's great to hear debate on this issue... but this is a scientific issue, and we should test it with science. Google is a big company. They should conduct their own experiment and publish the results if they want to refute the FCC test.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
... because for someone who hasn't been following this in detail, TFA doesn't even make clear what exactly Page is claiming happened.
Larry is an executive at the company that's claiming it was held to an unfair test. You think Google doesn't employ radio experts who could have told him what to say?
Oh the conspiracy of it all!
Next they'll be rigging voting machines
Oh wait . . .
--
Oh well, Bad Karma and all . . .
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
I really, really don't like whitespace devices.
Companies like Google claim it will allow internet access in rural areas; that's also what they've said about BPL and WiMax and we see that those are being deployed mostly in major cities. The difference is that this time, there's no gain in major cities. (This is so much like BPL it's amazing, able to stomp on everything that's supposed to be in the band, not really benefiting anyone who's supposed to be benefited by this, etc.)
With digital TV coming, white space devices are a very, very bad idea. These devices can start transmitting and wipe out a digital signal, and then how are you going to know what's causing it? At least with analog you could look at the noise in the picture and get some idea of what's causing it. I know they're supposed to detect interference, but as anyone with a cell phone can tell you, dead spots for UHF can be very small and the device could pick what looks like an "empty" channel only for it to be the same as a local TV station.
I'll admit I'm biased in favor of over the air TV, but unlicensed white space devices are a really bad idea. If the FCC wants to license them to allow them to use TV spectrum, that doesn't bother me, but a free-for-all is a terrible idea. In fact, there was a company that did something like that, used a TV license from the FCC and did internet service with it, I want to say it was in Houston. They went out of business, I believe.
I generally like Google, but I am in complete disagreement on this subject.
Here's the summary:
There's unused radio spectrum (called "white space") between the TV channels that are designed to give the stations protection. Google (and others) claim that small radio devices can transmit on those frequencies and not harm the TV signals, TV stations of course fearful of anything that might cost them viewers disputed that.
So the FCC set up a field test of a Google device and other devices to see if everything work right. The result of that test was a "fail" for Google's side... but the news is that Google is claiming the wireless microphone channel being tested equated to a local TV broadcasting channel, and therefore was unfair.
I'd also say that the same applies to any other discipline. If you see a flaw in someone's argument, call them on it. People are human and do make mistakes. And amateurs have access to information that many professionals would have killed for even a few years ago.
Now, this doesn't mean that a doctor or other expert has to listen to every crackpot, and that every amateur ought to be given the same weight as a noted expert. Sometimes, the proper answer to a question is indeed "Stop wasting my time." The trick is to know what time is when.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Summary for non-engineers:
Google (among others) want to use the newly freed analog TV frequencies to provide long range wireless internet.
Short range RF microphones i.e. wireless stage mics that aren't using IR currently operate in this area as well. current analog TV doesn't interfere, I'll spare details.
Some claim the wireless internet system that has been devised will interfere with these microphones. Google group says they won't because the devices are capable of detecting a microphone transmitting and work around the issue (change freq).
FCC setup a test, device failed to avoid microphones frequencies thus, knocking it out of commission and failing the test.
Google chap claims the testers had the mic transmitting on a frequency used by the local TV channel and this transmitter was so strong that the system could not detect the microphone because it was effectively masked.
Google chap says this was done on purpose.
The end.
What we're hearing about now is outrage over test results which have not yet been published. When they are, they will "show" that wireless Internet devices that Google is trying to get accepted by the FCC were unable to detect a wireless microphone. We've supposed to then believe that the wireless Internet device, having failed to detect the microphone when it checked that chunk of the spectrum, would then begin transmitting on that piece of spectrum, thereby disrupting the microphone. The sound bite is "device which fails to avoid interfering with wireless mic is bad and will not be allowed."
It takes only a moment to see that it was a rigged test because the wireless Internet device did NOT interfere with the microphone, because it did successfully detect the local television station that was broadcasting on that frequency and therefore did not try to use it. Analog TV stations are some seriously high power broad spectrum noise. Any frequency-hopping wireless Internet device would be useless attempting to use the same frequency and would obviously move on to another part of the spectrum, thereby avoiding interfering with the TV station and any other device being masked by it. That part will be conveniently left out of the headlines. The fact that the wireless microphone itself may have been useless while attempting to use that frequency, due to interference from the television station, will also be left out.
So basically the rigged test will be used to deny Google's hopes of fielding devices to use unused spectrum, thereby maintaining the television broadcast industry's lock on chunks of spectrum that they're not even using. It's an inefficient waste of spectrum that dates back 50 years to the days of radios that had just enough vacuum tubes to put a signal into the air, and had none left over for complicated automatic frequency usage detection algorithms. Nor had the Ethernet exponential back-off anti-interference algorithm been connected to the problem. The regulatory regime is antiquated, but the entrenched corporations that have a vested interest in spectrum are defending what they see as "their" airwaves merely on principle.
It wouldn't take a working group all that long to come up with new technical requirements that could be used as FCC regulations that would make use of ALL allocated but unused licensed spectrum, without ever interfering with older dumb devices. Software radios that receive before broadcasting, analyze the results, move on to another frequency if usage is detected, exponentially back off that frequency if it's still in use the next time around, transmit only during some defined time slice, and never broadcast more than 1 watt of power could use that spectrum without legacy device interference and without mutual device interference. Google knows it. The TV industry knows it. The TV industry feels besieged after having parts of spectrum that has been their exclusive stomping grounds for decades sold off to the highest bidder while they get squeezed into digital broadcasts. Google claims they're pulling dirty tricks to defend the spectrum they have left. Just sitting here looking in from outside, I have to agree.
When I saw the "white space" being rigged reference I was expecting some election cover-up story from some red state in the bible belt.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It takes only a moment to see that it was a rigged test because the wireless Internet device did NOT interfere with the microphone, because it did successfully detect the local television station that was broadcasting on that frequency and therefore did not try to use it. Analog TV stations are some seriously high power broad spectrum noise. Any frequency-hopping wireless Internet device would be useless attempting to use the same frequency and would obviously move on to another part of the spectrum, thereby avoiding interfering with the TV station and any other device being masked by it. That part will be conveniently left out of the headlines. The fact that the wireless microphone itself may have been useless while attempting to use that frequency, due to interference from the television station, will also be left out.
The test is not rigged. I have been doing RF coordination for entertainment professionally for about a decade now and I can assure that with this test the FCC has highlighted one major strategy that we use in crowded RF environments.
An analog television station is not the high power broadband noise machine you make it out to be. An NTSC analog signal takes up 6MHz of bandwidth in the radio spectrum. That signal is actually made up of three distinct signals that are modulated into one channel; those signals are a video carrier, a chromance sub-carrier (color) and a sound sub-carrier. Those signals take up a few 100kHz of bandwidth and are separated by a few 100kHz.
The standard RF microphone used for stage, television and film production has a peak bandwidth of ~ +/- 56kHz or a grand total of ~112kHz total deviation. With that small usage of bandwidth we can fit three microphones into an operating analog television channel without causing interference to the primary spectrum user.
The FCC test seems to be showing that Google's engineers are unaware of this strategy employed by RF coordinators and that if their device decided to employ the same strategy, it would interfere with the operating microphone within the analog television channel.
Mind you, this becomes moot on 19 February 2009 as we cannot do this trick with a digital ATSC signal. That is the high-power noise generating machine you are refering to.
-e
FTFA (hiliting mine) "The FCC's wireless microphone field tests were carefully planned and thoroughly executed based on sound engineering science and real-world operating scenarios. These tests were open to the public, and those who choose to discount the results -- which have not yet been published -- had every option to be present and to witness them for themselves."
Ya gotta learn how to play the game, this is gov't after all guys and apparently you didnt lobby quite enough for this.
The white space between channels can be used by auto-tuning software to determine where the channels are by detecting energy levels. Fill the white space up and this sort of auto-tuning cannot work. Modern digital tuners probably don't need this, but older, cheaper designs probably do.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
FAIL!
There will be no full power analog TV broadcasters, but the transition date of 2/17 does not apply to -LP, -CA and translators.
Then, given that all you'll have to work with is an impenetrable square wave, and given that the FCC knows this, what is the purpose of demonstrating that you can play funky tricks by squeezing a microphone into space that will no longer exist? How can it be anything other than rigged? You said yourself this trick will not even be possible in just a few short months. How is a test that tests an environment that will no longer exist anything but a con job? My definition of "rigging" a test is creating a test that is not a faithful representation of the actual operating environment to the detriment of the applicant.
I know, I know, never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. So some idiot designed the test, thinking he was being clever, when it had nothing to do with the environment that will pertain by the time any action could be taken to approve whitespace devices.
I still say that the Google devices checked for signals right where the 6 Mhz of spectrum was supposed to be in use, and immediately moved on, chalking off the whole block as occupied. Why check further when the licensed user is very much clear and present? It doesn't even require naivete to make that decision. It only takes a conservative engineer. Just because people like you are willing to squeeze your signal into that occupied frequency doesn't mean they were. (I don't mean that pejoratively. I'm referring to you as representative of your industry, representing long-established practice.)
And you and I both know that the theoretically lovely 6 MHz NTSC analog signal gets bounced around by structures and atmospheric effects until it gets smeared across 20 MHz or more. The buffer zone built in to the 6 MHz allocation has never been enough to prevent signal bleedover into the space of other stations.
who the hell modded this insightful?
this test was designed to see if allowing broadband internet applications unlicensed use of white spaces would interfere with current hardware, such as wireless microphones.
how can such a test be conducted when there's already other sources of interference on those frequencies? unless they rule out the interference being caused by local TV broadcasts, then they can't use the test results as an acceptable metric.
frankly, i think the public would receive more benefit from broadband internet being given this dedicated spectrum rather than TV stations or wireless microphones. especially if it's used for public/municipal wi-fi deployment via WiMAX or other last mile solutions.
the internet is a public generalized data network. that means it can be used by anyone, and anyone can develop new applications for it. cellular networks, TV, radio, etc. are all closed proprietary networks which are controlled by a handful of corporations. no one is allowed to develop new applications for these networks, and thus little innovation or technological progress has occured in these networks compared to the public internet.
if we can establish a national wireless broadband infrastructure, it could be used to deliver/broadcast text, video, audio, or any other form of digital data. not only would it be a major infrastructure upgrade, but it would be a democratization of the media by decentralizing media distribution. we would just have wi-fi appliances for streaming internet radio stations rather than AM/FM radios, giving indie artists as much exposure as mainstream artists who currently dominate traditional media.
i mean, why should a few media corporations have exclusive usage rights over such a large range of the radio spectrum when the public would receive so much more benefit from those frequency ranges being used for broadband internet access?
I am the Game-Day frequency coordinator for a major-league sports team (contractor to the league). Some of my colleagues were in on the test and I have read their individual on-field reports.
My recollection is that a good many of the WM's tested in this experiment were in "good, clean whitespace." Let's think it through - a WM hidden in an occupied analog TV channel should be protected by the much stronger carriers of that station. If the whitespace-using net gear is equipped to use such small interstitial spaces as WMs use, it should be sensitive enough to detect WM carriers therein.
I suspect Mr. Page's remarks are fed by a badly underling-filtered early version of the report (or leak).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is exactly how spooks and the like hide a microphone (bug).
The best way is to have it transmit within the exact same frequency or spectrum that another service uses.
If you use low enough power for your transmitter, you minimize collateral receivers being able to pick your signal up, while at the same time making it near impossible to track or find the bug.
Google's guy is just pissed he got one-upped. The FCC did this entirely within the realm of what would happen in the real world.
Sometimes it sucks to come out from behind the keyboard and discover real world stuff, huh?
--Toll_Free
We're not talking about setting up a machine that sprays toxic waste into the atmosphere or some sort of plant that will poison groundwater supplies, we're talking about setting up a goddamn broadcast antenna. Just like the ones Mexicans watch TV on currently. The original poster's point was that since the agency that decides whether or not you can SET UP broadcast antennas in the US is also the one that's being accused of RIGGING the test and LYING about the results, you'll have to find somewhere else to set up your antenna.
So take your trumped up "disgust" and stick it in your self righteous ass.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
It's up to engineers working on a production system to bring something out of beta, kthx.
That would be the "D" component of R&D.
Mis-diagnosis killed my brother. Seriously.
He was having pain in his left calf whenever he did light/moderate excercise. I don't mean running, I mean walking around the mall. He would cramp up after about 5 minutes, then when his muscle relaxed, he could continue walking for quite a while.
He went to at least three doctors and all three told him different things. 1) he just needed more exercise. 2) it was a torn or damaged muscle 3) he needed more potassium. This is in spite of the fact that he had the symptoms for three years before his death.
Actual answer: Severe atherosclerosis which lead to myocardiac infarction (heart attack), and death.
It was surprisingly easy to figure out from the symptoms and a few websites. I was shocked that none of them thought to mention the possibility, and that they all discounted each others diagnoses.
I never needed a wireless mic. 99% of the general population will never use a professional wireless mics. The very limited niche of baby-mics and things like that can be easily served by a single spectrum, 10-20KHz wide. When white-space internet becomes available, it will be easy to make wireless mics work on it. So put a cork in it, wireless mics are NOT a real issue.
The real issue here is the fear of traditional broadcast of new technology in general, and Internet in particular. You know you have an ethics problem when Microsoft calls you on it:
The Federal Communications Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology released a report dated July 31, 2007 with results from its investigation of two preliminary devices submitted. The report concluded that the devices did not reliably sense the presence of television transmissions or other incumbent users, hence are not acceptable for use in their current state and no further testing was deemed necessary.[4] However, on August 13, 2007 Microsoft filed a document with the FCC in which it described a meeting that its engineers had with FCC engineers from the Office of Engineering and Technology on August 9 and 10. At this meeting the Microsoft engineers showed results from their testing done with identical prototype devices and using identical testing methods that "detected DTV signals at a threshold of -114 dBm in laboratory bench testing with 100 percent accuracy, performing exactly as expected." In the presence of FCC engineers, the Microsoft engineers took apart the device that the FCC had tested to find the cause of the poor performance. They found that "the scanner in the device had been damaged and operated at a severely degraded level" which explained the FCC unit's inability to detect when channels were occupied. It was also pointed out that the FCC was in possession of an identical backup prototype that was in perfect operating condition that they had not tested.
ROTFLMAO !
The arrogant one is you, thinking that the US population should be denied a very useful WiFi network because you might not still receive an analog television signal via antenna from another state. Perhaps nobody told you that you will not be receiving that signal very soon anyway?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Yes, great idea/home/zibri
White space is not defined as the small padding between documented frequencies, thogh a spall part of it exists there. White space are the UNUSED frequencies in many markets.
You see, there are more than 40 TV broadcast chanels available, and a further 81 digital channels as well, but in any one market or area, typically no more than 10 are ever in use. There is some small bleed over from one market to another, so maybe 15-18 of the channels may have some signal detectable and thus needing to be avoides.
Wireless microphones are poretty much the only other dev ice allowed to operate in this range. Where TV might cover 100 mile radius of effect, mics have at best a mile or so. There are a lot more of them in use, upwards of 40 for a single concert, and dozens at each TV studio, and your local bands and clubs each may use a few, but I know a few guys in bands, and they donlt seem to have any issues with signal crossover themselves when setting up their gear, so there are clearly not so many of these in use that it's a big issue.
a white space detecting wi-fi system would simply scan the spectrum and find a frequenct it detects no power on at all. Then, if it feels its safe, it powers on its anteanna and begins broadcasting, but that's not where it stops. Should it detect a signal after its picked one, its supposed to automatically fail over to a backup frequency (it also scanned for) and instantly stop broadcasting on the first until it determines the nature of that signal (perhaps it's just anotehr wi-fi base station that it can co-exist with).
Now, we're also not talking about using these things in home deployments. The purpose of this frequency is that it penetrates walls and has a significant range for a small amount of gain. Home users don;t need a wi-fi base station with a 5 mile radious of effect... This is for municipal deployment, large campuses, park areas, etc. Busineses won't use it because the range is so great, it's a security risk. In any geographic area, an ISP would deploy these things in a grid pattern, likely each 2-3 miles apart, so there's reasonable signal coverage even if one fails. This means at any one spot, an ISP might be using 5 signals, which I might add use a tighter digital signal range than TV, so 2 or 3 of these might take the channel space of 1 TV station. Maybe there's 3 or 4 ISPs in an area that size with simalar devices, so potentially we're talking 16-20 radios, which might use 20% of the white space in a given 5 mile radius, of which less than 20% more is in use by broadcast TV stations. This leaves 60% of the digital frequenct range for wireless microphones... 3 times what either TV or Wi-Max are getting. Why is this an issue?
Besides, for wireless mics, they can change frequencies! TV stations can't, but when your engineer powers on a mic, he checks for interferernce. If it's a bad, channel, he changes it. Once the mic is on, since Wi-max would not interfere, the only other potential for interference is someone else using a mic on the same channel. They're used to that. Even if WiMax was using the frequency when he turned it on, it would stop and the mic would get a clear signal unless another mic was also came on.
I think the only thing we might be able to propose is limiting wimax deployment into white space to a certain number of operating base stations on seperate chanels (some will be bridges on the same channel, so they don;t count). Say, limit to to 25 or 30% of the total available white space, and if it comes on and there's not enough, it should report an error. Again, this is limited to ISPs and big municipalities, so I really doubt we'd even hit this number of stations operating at once anyway.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
Well I don't know, you could be right. But I was told my version by my history teacher and he sounded pretty confident, and he was really, really old. you kind of got the feeling he was there.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Um, underwriters labs?
And it's not just about me. There are ~50 million other people in the same boat - relying upon over-the-air television. You have no right to cut them off from TV with your interfering web-widgets.
Wait, ~50 million other people use huge 25dB antennas to get channels from out-of-state TV stations? Somehow I think you're making that up... or did you perhaps mean that a rare few would be "cut off from TV", and the vast majority would be totally unaffected?
What makes you think you're guaranteed to be able to receive some weak signal from a 70-mile-away station anyway? I don't know what "region" you're in, but if I'm reading this correctly then a 100kW TV station could broadcast on the same channel if it's 290 km (~180 miles) from the nearest 100kW station on that channel. If I'm reading this and this correctly, the stations could be as close as 114 miles apart. Obviously those can't both be correct but take your pick; either way I'm betting your reception would be screwed.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
OK. Read the above sentence carefully then the next (you wrote them, I know, but I don't think you read them.)
So riddle me this: If you live in such a remote area, why is there a danger of your airspace being overtaken by WiFi gadgets?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Tests rigged? That's not what I get from the director of advanced development for Shure Brothers Microphones, Edgar Reihl.
He was there for the tests last month.
See this article in Broadcast Engineering magazine:
http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/reihl-sheds-light-wsd-tests20080819/index.html