White Spaces Test "Rigged," Says Google Co-Founder Page 323
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."
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 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.
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
Re:Disagree (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 (well, most of that is done with GIS) and the dont-touch frequencies. The FCC should already have that list, most likely in a weird form.
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.
Re:Oh My! (Score:1, Interesting)
McCain/Diebold - We can't lose!
Voting machines will probably favor the candidate who has raised the most money. Corporations won't want to waste their investments.
Obama has raised $454 million compared to McCain's $230 million.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php [opensecrets.org]
Obama's top donors: [opensecrets.org]
Goldman Sachs $691,930
University of California $611,207
Citigroup Inc $448,599
JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919
Harvard University $435,769
Google Inc $420,174
UBS AG $404,750
National Amusements Inc $389,140
Microsoft Corp $377,235
Lehman Brothers $370,524
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.
Re:You know.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, that statement might get a nod of agreement from my doctor. I am one of the fortunate few who has what is sometimes regarded as an overqualified GP. But aside from all the paper qualifications, he has the two that are most valuable, namely (1) a moderate-sized ego (so isn't ashamed to admit when he's been barking up the wrong tree and look elsewhere for a diagnosis) and (2) a wide streak of cynicism.
Re:fantastic (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps the best current term would be "developing," though even that is not fully accurate. Mexico does, however, serve as a good example of the type of country you get if you let libertarian ideals of no regulation and limited government go to their natural conclusion: a few rich families control basically everything worth controlling, and a majority of everyone else is dirt poor and suffers.
Do you really have to go out of your way to bash some political ideology you don't like? This is about as disingenuous as saying that the United States' current economy problems is due to socialism. You come off more as a wacko paranoid over libertarians than anything else, especially because Mexico has really nothing to do with libertarianism, either in civil or economic matters. I might as well claim our shit economy is due to socialism's natural conclusions--hey, it's an outcome I don't like, so it must be the result of come political ideology I also don't like!
Come back with a real argument, then we'll talk.
Re:fantastic (Score:2, Interesting)
Mexico isn't even in the "top 10" of nations or places in terms of economic freedom, for one. For two, you're not even really making an argument, just an assertion.
In any case, you're making the same error ideologues on any side usually make--that because you perceive that country to have X, and since it also has quality Y, then Y is due to X. Truth is, you have to account for historical, cultural, political, and environmental factors which could also be influences or factors in any country's corruption or economic status. This applies to big or small government, libertarian or socialist, whatever. All I'm getting from you is vague, pro-government ideology and not really a coherent or supported argument.
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.
Re:Disagree (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 signed on, it started trashing my cordless landline phone at home which happened to operate on the same range of frequencies. My TV stations are, with two exceptions, 79 miles away (and I'm on the side of the county closer to the stations, I know people 95 miles out who watch them), and generally require a roof antenna to see. Is a white space device going to successfully detect this and manage to not trash 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?
Re:fantastic (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure some Mexican slashdotters will be more disgusted at you calling Mexico a "third world" country.
As a citizen of a South American thirld world country, personally, I am not disgusted with dealing with the issue that my country is part of the thirld world. It's a sad fact that I hope some day will change.
I am disgusted though by the what the Great Grand Parent suggested. Either that Mexicans are so backwards they don't care about regulating the radio frequency spectrum, or that it's just a shitty country and wou can do whatever you want.