Slashdot Log In
White Spaces Test "Rigged," Says Google Co-Founder Page
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Sep 25, 2008 06:38 PM
from the say-it-ain't-so dept.
from the say-it-ain't-so dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
News: White Space Debate Intensifies As Vote Approaches 94 comments
Ars Technica reports that the debate between broadcasters and white space supporters has intensified after each side recently made inflammatory comments and suggested that science would vindicate their position. Several organizations are pushing to delay the upcoming white space vote, in part because it takes place on the same day as the US presidential election. We recently discussed Google's claim that a test of this system was rigged to fail. From Ars:
"The broadcasters contend that adjacent channel interference would be significant even at the 40 mW level proposed by Kevin Martin. In fact, they claim that such a device would interfere with digital television signals when the viewer is 25 miles from the television tower and the whitespace device is 10m or less from the TV set. At 50 miles from the television tower, a whitespace device within 50m from a set could allegedly cause interference. The broadcasters also want several safeguard requirements put on the technology that go beyond the new, lower-power transmission levels."
[+]
Technology: Why We Need Unlicensed White-Space Broadband Spectrum 179 comments
pgoldtho writes "PC Mag has a story about why the 'white-space' spectrum that will be freed when TV broadcasts switch to digital should be available for unlicensed use. This would allow it to be used to deliver broadband connectivity in rural areas and create a 'third pipe' alternative to the cable/telco duopoly. The FCC is scheduled to vote on this November 4th. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has filed an emergency appeal to block this vote. If the NAB succeeds, the issue will be kicked into next year. Which would mean a new FCC, Congress, and Administration."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
fantastic (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:fantastic (Score:5, Informative)
It's hard to test these things without the FCC's help... you need to set up a scale model of TV station signals, and that requires an FCC license to do.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's hard to test these things without the FCC's help... you need to set up a scale model of TV station signals, and that requires an FCC license to do.
Only within the Continental U.S., Hawaii and some U.S. territories. Let Google go offshore somewhere and set up a test facility. I doubt Mexico would care very much (probably just grease a few palms.) Or just run their tests inside a giant shielded area ... maybe an aircraft hangar.
Re:fantastic (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure some Mexican slashdotters will be more disgusted at you calling Mexico a "third world" country.
Parent
Re:fantastic (Score:5, Informative)
Mexico is categorized as third world, though... It's not a value judgement on the worth of Mexico, it's simply a categorization used during the cold war which still lives on.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, Mexico is in the first world. Well, it was, when that and terms in its family had meaning. Since Mexico was pretty firmly in the US sphere of influence, it lands squarely there. A country like the former East Germany would have been in the 2nd world, along with other Soviet aligned sattelite states. A country like, say, Kenya, would be in the 3rd world of unaligned non-powers. Mexico could be called poor, except that it is actually a resource rich country with a lot of potential that is being wast
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as I remember, it was never considered part of the "First World." It was never really politically aligned with the US or the USSR, so it falls into the third world. Being in the US's 'Sphere of Influence' doesn't really mean much, what matters is how closely a nation aligned with US policy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wasn't aware that Mexico was Libertarian
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Well that's too bad, because it is a "third world" country whether it likes it or not.
Re:fantastic (Score:4, Informative)
First, he didn't call it a third world country. Second, it actually is a third world country. [wikipedia.org] So the only reason Mexicans would be disgusted is if they were stupid and easily offended.
Parent
Re:fantastic (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no need to go to the Third World. In another country that doesn't have a corrupt equivalent of the FCC beholden to special interests, Google can go ahead with the tests.
Seriously, Google needs to be thinking about the future and the U. S. ain't it. Someday, and not very far out, the U. S. (or whatever ends up replacing it on the North American land mass) will be the Third World Government getting bribed for Science!!!
Japan maybe, France, plenty of countries will want to get a jump on this technology. If the U. S. wants to fall behind because a few rich people can corrupt a regulatory body so they can buy a few more ivory backscratchers, so be it! Lord knows it's a drop in the bucket compared to what has been outsourced or legally crippled because of our little masters of the Universe on Wall Street. We're getting near the end of Atlas Shrugged here or the beginning of 1984 or sometime way before the beginning of Revolt in 2100. Take your pick, dystopias in real life all end the same way.
Parent
Get off your damn high horse (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course there are. There are also lighting requirements to prevent aircraft from smashing into them in the dark. But my point was that Google wouldn't be attempting to do anything nefarious and thereby exploit Mexico's third world status, not that there's no danger whatsoever from a radio antenna.
Can someone explain this article a bit better... (Score:3, Insightful)
... because for someone who hasn't been following this in detail, TFA doesn't even make clear what exactly Page is claiming happened.
Re:Can someone explain this article a bit better.. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
White space is not just for protection (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Wi
Oh My! (Score:5, Funny)
Next they'll be rigging voting machines
Oh wait . . .
--
Oh well, Bad Karma and all . . .
Re:Oh My! (Score:4, Funny)
McCain/Diebold - We can't lose!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
McCain/Diebold - We can't lose!
Even with Diebold on his side, I think McCain could figure out a way.
Re:Oh My! (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind that those organizations didn't donate that money, those organizations' employees did. Google did not donate $420,000 to Obama, Googlers did.
This is an important distinction.
Parent
Disagree (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then how about a compromise?
Since this is a pda, adding a GPS wouldnt be a bad idea, in fact I think it'd be a nice addition.
With a GPS, one could check a database in which has a list of frequencies that are "off limits". Though, the bad side is the device will have a chance of interfering for the small amount of time in which the list is being downloaded. I cant see the list being larger than 20KB per 1 sq. km. , so perhaps 3 seconds of jamming potential.
The only real work would be the creation of the DB (
Re:Disagree (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
same way you did it then. use a reciever and walk around. Digital is not "magical" it's stil the same ANALOG Rf transmission carrying 1's and 0's instead of .5,1,1.5,6,9,about 2, kinda 4,.....
so you use simple RDF techniques and find it. Really really simple and around here 9-13 year olds do it all the time.
It's called "fox hunting" and they use a simple pocket scanner to find a hiddent transmitter that transmits only for 1 minute every 5-10 minutes.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, the signal is not going to be able to impact TV signals, but will deliver high speed internet to rural areas at the same time? I live in a rural area, and let me tell you TV signals aren't usually strong in those areas. I haven't heard white space devices described as wireless routers (in which case I'd be inclined to believe you), I've heard them described as ISP wireless transmitters. My internet provider is a wireless ISP who operates on 900 MHz, I'm three miles from their tower, and when they sig
Summary for non-engineers (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good summary for engineers, too. I'm an engineer, but I wasn't able to figure out what the complaint was about from TFA.
Please mod parent up.
Better Off Dead (Score:2)
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.
Hey, can I get one of those? That might be fun to play with:
"Hey there Lane, I know this is a little awkward, me being a cartoon and all, I was just wondering how you'd feel if I took out Beth." -- Bernard "Barney" Rubble
I'd call it rigged too. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'd call it rigged too. (I wouldn't) (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Parent
Re:I'd call it rigged too. (I wouldn't) (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Bah, I got confused by the title (Score:2, Funny)
Crybaby (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Shure's Side of the Story (Score:3, Informative)
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 [broadcastengineering.com]
Re:You go, Larry! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Vested interest does not necessarily lead to bias, though it certainly could have done so in this case.
You know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:You know.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd like to give you my vote on your post and add a comment:
Get a second opinion. You will be shocked at how often two doctors disagree on what might seem to be simple diagnoses, meaning that at least one of them is just quite simply WRONG.
Doctors get it wrong a little more than three quarters of the time in my experience.
Parent
Doctors are human (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:You know.... (Score:4, Funny)
A man comes in for an earache, and the doctor prescribes some drops to put in his ear. He leaves and lets the nurse handle it. The nurse comes in, and without the nurse or the patient questioning anything, she administers the eardrops in the patient's butt. The doctor had written "2 drops daily in R ear" meaning the Right Ear, but the nurse misread it. This true story demonstrates how trusting we are of doctors and how they are never questioned when sometimes they really should be.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:But it won't be how they're deployed in the fie (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Usually I like Google, but in this case.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:Usually I like Google, but in this case.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org]:
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 [fcc.gov] correctly then a 100kW TV station could broadcast on the same channel if it
Re:Usually I like Google, but in this case.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)