America's FCC Votes Unanimously To Divide 'Safety Spectrum' Into Wifi and Auto Applications (consumerreports.org) 64
"The Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously Thursday to push a plan forward that would take away several channels of airwaves from automakers and local governments that have been planning to build out a communication network for cars and surrounding smart infrastructure," writes Consumer Reports, in an article shared by McGruber.
"The 5-0 commission vote indicated how much ground the auto industry has lost in protecting the airwaves that have been reserved since 1999 as a so-called safety spectrum." The industry and some state and local governments have been counting on it to deliver vehicle-to-everything communications, or V2X, that could improve safety and also help in the development of self-driving-car technology... The FCC plan would all but kill an approach to V2X that relies on short-range radio, called DSRC, that has been deployed by local governments at some 100 test sites around the country, safety advocates say. That could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded local investments into smart traffic lights and other smart road technology would be wasted, according to state officials. The FCC plan would divide 75 MHz of the safety spectrum between WiFi and auto safety applications. The FCC proposal allocates 20 MHz for a newer V2X technology, known as C-V2X, and leaves 10 MHz for either C-V2X or DSRC.
All five FCC commissioners spoke about the vast economic potential of more airwaves dedicated to WiFi, and said not enough had happened with the V2X technology to continue to set aside so much spectrum for its exclusive use.
Republican Commissioner Michael O'Rielly said some opponents of the FCC plan might say the move puts vehicle safety in jeopardy or will lead to increased fatalities. "That is pure gibberish," O'Rielly said at the hearing. "Everyone on this dais wants our families, friends, neighbors, countrymen, and countrywomen to be safe when traveling in motor vehicles. DSRC hasn't come anywhere close to fruition." Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said other countries were dedicating less than 75 MHz to V2X applications, and the 10 MHz that could be available for DSRC in the FCC plan matches what Japan is doing.
The article concludes that the commission "will collect and analyze public comments over the next several months before any plan becomes final.
"But the comments of the commissioners and FCC staff left little doubt about the direction the agency is moving in.
"The 5-0 commission vote indicated how much ground the auto industry has lost in protecting the airwaves that have been reserved since 1999 as a so-called safety spectrum." The industry and some state and local governments have been counting on it to deliver vehicle-to-everything communications, or V2X, that could improve safety and also help in the development of self-driving-car technology... The FCC plan would all but kill an approach to V2X that relies on short-range radio, called DSRC, that has been deployed by local governments at some 100 test sites around the country, safety advocates say. That could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded local investments into smart traffic lights and other smart road technology would be wasted, according to state officials. The FCC plan would divide 75 MHz of the safety spectrum between WiFi and auto safety applications. The FCC proposal allocates 20 MHz for a newer V2X technology, known as C-V2X, and leaves 10 MHz for either C-V2X or DSRC.
All five FCC commissioners spoke about the vast economic potential of more airwaves dedicated to WiFi, and said not enough had happened with the V2X technology to continue to set aside so much spectrum for its exclusive use.
Republican Commissioner Michael O'Rielly said some opponents of the FCC plan might say the move puts vehicle safety in jeopardy or will lead to increased fatalities. "That is pure gibberish," O'Rielly said at the hearing. "Everyone on this dais wants our families, friends, neighbors, countrymen, and countrywomen to be safe when traveling in motor vehicles. DSRC hasn't come anywhere close to fruition." Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said other countries were dedicating less than 75 MHz to V2X applications, and the 10 MHz that could be available for DSRC in the FCC plan matches what Japan is doing.
The article concludes that the commission "will collect and analyze public comments over the next several months before any plan becomes final.
"But the comments of the commissioners and FCC staff left little doubt about the direction the agency is moving in.
5.9ghz (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The impact is minimal when the application is short range line of sight communications.
At the distances useful for safety applications, even in heavy rain or snow, most of the space between the cars is still air.
The wifi applications will be more likely to be affected by weather; this is likely only for large mesh networks where you always have line of sight to something close, like a school or company campus, or a city/neighborhood wireless internet provider. In many of these scenarios both available bandw
Re: (Score:1)
WiFi (Score:5, Interesting)
We (the public) have been waiting for more usable WiFi spectrum for what seems like an eternity. I thought we were going to get some of the exciting lower frequencies, which would allow better distance and penetration (of which 2.4 Ghz is so-so and 5 Ghz is useless). I would love some 2.0 to 2.3 Ghz channels added. Not so sure I would be as excited with 75Mhz, as proposed in this situation. That is pretty low.... and we don't need but so much distance with typical WiFi applications (it is always a tradeoff- lower spectrum will be slower but have better range and penetration).
For 2.4 Ghz WiFi (in the USA), we really only have 3 channels (channels which do not overlap at all). That is a real shame, considering how important the function is, how much innovation it has created, and just how incredibly busy/noisy/crammed it now is (and has been). I would love to have seen that at least doubled, if not tripled by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Reply to self-
I misread it as a 75Mhz band... the proposed band is 5.9Ghz, which is, quite frankly, very uninteresting. It is just too high. It will have no range or penetrating power.
Still, I guess we should be happy with whatever we can get?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Story I heard is when technology got to a point of huge demand for wireless computer connections and numerous wireless devices, all the spectrum was claimed by other services. Only thing available was the ISM allocated to things like microwave ovens so that's was the only place to "homestead." Of course for really good spectrum, large companies purchased that specifically for their services.
There is 220 to 222 MHz that UPS took away from the hams some years ago, and never used it from what I understand. The
Re: WiFi (Score:2)
The article is poorly written - the 75 and 10 MHz allocations are BANDWIDTH, not frequency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WiFi (Score:4, Insightful)
The entire point of the WiFi frequencies is that they're short range. Signals at these frequencies attenuate quickly with distance due to atmospheric or other effects. That way your neighbor's WiFi network generates minimal interference with your WiFi network. The last thing you want is to put WiFi on frequencies which have good penetration and travel long distances. It would work if you were the only person in the world. But it doesn't work when you're sharing the planet with 8 billion other people.
The entire reason the FCC exists is to manage and minimize interference between people using the same frequencies. That's why you need a license to transmit at most frequencies. The reason you don't need a license for WiFi is because it's deliberately been shoehorned into frequencies with high natural attenuation, so interference is minimized without the need for regulatory management via licensing.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems that for short-r
Re: (Score:2)
Problem with using cameras for IR reception is the incredibly low bitrate. Since you need some kind of modulation and some error correction, and you receiver isn't synchronized to the transmitter... At 60 FPS you would be lucky to get 5 bits/sec and even that is going to require some image processing to track multiple transmitters.
Re: (Score:2)
The eye has no frame rate. The center of the eye has a lower "frame rate" than the periphery. And the frame rate. like a camera, changes with light. But it's a per-pixel framerate. So when you look at an object, you have an individual frame rate that will be faster for the bright sections of the image, and lower for the darker
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like it would be a lot easier just to have a few different photodiodes around the car. They are cheap and there is already wiring for other sensors.
Or radio, that's even easier. The real problem is figuring out what to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
>"The reason you don't need a license for WiFi is because it's deliberately been shoehorned into frequencies with high natural attenuation, so interference is minimized without the need for regulatory management via licensing."
That is why I would really love some additional, adjacent 2.4Ghz channels for WiFi. It is a great compromise in frequency and function. Three non-overlapping channels just isn't enough.
Electric cars (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>As for Sirius, I could easily believe that there are licensing costs involved, in which case, I wouldn't blame them for giving Sirius a pass.
My Nissan leaf came with Sirius and I can attest that the spamming from Sirius to sign up to their paid for service made me hate (a) Sirius, (b) the dealer who presumably gave them my home address and (c) Nissan for their poor judgement.
I'm not surprised that Tesla didn't want that shit show in their cars.
Re: (Score:1)
AM radio is just as bad, but only when you turn it on.
20% of Americans on AM (mostly those with money) (Score:2)
About 90% of Americans listen to AM/FM radio. There is an obvious difference in who listens to FM more and who listens to AM more. If you're trying to sell a $25 item, the audience of a Top 40 station might be interested. If someone can afford a $50,000 car, that might be a person who listens to Bob Brinker, Tom Keene, and Anthony ONeal - on AM.
So yeah if I were selling expensive cars, I'd definitely spend the $3 to include AM.
BTW, if you're trying to reach potential buyers of $50,000-$125,000 cars, talk
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily (Score:2)
It sounds to me like AM would become far more valuable in an emergency situation.
Not necessarily. In some parts of the world nobody listens to AM anymore. Lots of the radio receivers I've seen sold here around in Europe are FM + DAB only, no support for AM. In case of emergency not a lot of people would have left over devices capable of receiving AM.
In fact lots of the European countries either have or are in the process of shutting down FM and exclusively rely on DAB for radio.
Meanwhile, lots of mobile service providers own mobile antenna in trailers that they can very easily deploy i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you never listened to any the shows I mentioned. ..."
If you ever listened to Bob Brinker, you'd hear the callers' questions "Bob, right now I have $400K in my Roth, $750K in my traditional IRA, and $350K in non-retirement accounts. I'll be retiring in 15 years, so I want to ask if
The average Camila Cabello fan doesn't know what a Roth is.
Anyway, is your Google broken? You're asking me to get you the stats to see if what came out of your ass, which doesn't make any kind of sense, might be correct?
Re: (Score:2)
Eh I checked the Nielson stats for you.
The median income of news radio listeners is over $75K, with only 7% making under $25K. That means the median for news is over 20% higher than the median for music. Shocking, since teenagers listen music and grown-ups listen to news.
http://katzmedia.com/wp-conten... [katzmedia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Did you just assume nobody would click the link and find you are simply lying about what it contains?
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you're a Camila Cabello fan?
It's okay, just because something is true *on average* doesn't mean it's true of you.
Re: (Score:2)
That means the median for news is over 20% higher than the median for music.
Where was that in your link?
Re: (Score:2)
Bro, you can listen Justin Bieber and think you're learning something valuable if you want to. It really doesn't matter to me what you listen to.
Re: (Score:2)
That means the median for news is over 20% higher than the median for music.
Still looking for "music' in the link you provided.
You've moved on from non sequitur to ad hominem non sequitur. I listened to radio back before phones had reliable traffic data. I haven't listened to the radio in years. I don't spend much time in cars. But feel free to make it about me and my music choices, to distract from your obvious and proven lies. You are just mad that I make more than you and don't listen to AM.
Ps when I called Bob Brinker in the 1980s (Score:2)
Talking about this reminds me of the one time I called the Bob Brinker show, shortly after he started the show. My call went something like this:
I've been listening for your show for a while and I've learned a lot about how to handle a million dollars. I'm 13. I have $350. How do I GET a million dollars? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans/conservatives aren't sitting around thinking "how can I pollute the environment today, haha!" A Tesla is a nice car that is desirable to own that happens to be green. The green-ness doesn't suddenly make the car terrible. I'd argue that Tesla is environmentalism done right: make something that people want that happens to be green.
Solar rooftop installs are a similar concept. Tell a right-winger "how dare you burn so much coal and oil" and he tunes you out before you finish the sentence. Ope
License (Score:2)
I would have assumed they left out AM radio because it is so remarkably unused that nobody really bothers anymore.
And has crappy quality reception even in ICE cars.
As for Sirius, I could easily believe that there are licensing costs involved
Given that Tesla still uses mobile internet, various positioning systems (GPS, etc.) and in Europe: DAB (a type of digital radio, the most closely related to Sirius' type of service), all of which operate in the Ghz range (just like Sirius) and none of which requires special licensing (unlike Sirius), I think your assumption about licensing seem correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Electric cars (Score:2)
The DC converters in a Tesla are not likely to jam 5 GHz signals, where the service under discussion is allocated.
I'm OK with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Rare bipartisanship for what seems to be a common-sense decision. Too bad for the auto industry, but they were dragging their feet. And I for one am not looking forward to this whole constantly-connected self-driving world. As we've seen, claims of AI capability have been vastly overstated, network security is far from assured, and fantasies of a high-tech future often manifest in unexpected, and not so positive, ways.
Re: (Score:2)
The surveillance state is always bi-partisan.
All you needed to convince both sides is: "Cars will soon need to be connected and approved in order to work. We can tax every mile, we can record every location. We can 'protect the children' by automatically enforcing every single traffic regulation. And we can finally get a share of the revenue (fines) by adding fees when local authorities access the system."
How much will this cost you ask? Next to nothing, all the hard parts have already been figured out
Ah so (Score:2)
"will collect and analyze public comments over the next several months before any plan becomes final."
Which troll farm got the contract for this one? Should be lucrative!
so who will they be selling it to? (Score:1)
Use it or lose it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If you are driving in a turning lane and the fact that someone ahead of you wants to turn, the problem is you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or at least make it close enough to the surface to see out to the street. Maybe uncover the basement window.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't even figure out where this guy must live that he's never encountered a lane that allows turns but isn't explicitly a turning lane.
In rural areas there's one lane in each direction for all purposes.
In small urban areas there can be 2 lanes each direction, with left turners using the left lane and right turners using the right lane.
In urban areas the roads can be one way with the edgemost lanes functioning as turn-or-straight.
In suburbs people may slow down and turn to enter their driveway, which very
Re: Use it or lose it (Score:2)
I always look through ,or over, the car in front of me and watch the car in front of them. Helps me anticipate better.
Re: (Score:2)
If that was always possible, I'd believe you.
Re: (Score:2)
I look through other car's windshields all the time. Most of the time, you can see 2 even 3 cars ahead. It breaks down when it's an SUV.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of why I won't get an SUV. It's safer* for me if the car behind me can see what the car in front of me is doing.
*SUVs may be safer in the event of an accident, but avoiding situations which could cause an accident is superior IMO.
Re: Use it or lose it (Score:2)
Car to car communications protocol can help out in this situation and many others.
When the first car signals it's intention to turn, the second car sees the indication and acts accordingly, and the driver of the second car indicates his decision to turn or slow to the third car, and so on.
You have no need to know what the driver two cars ahead is doing, you need to know what the car directly in front of you is doing.
Re: (Score:2)
In the real world, the soccer mom in front of me with a loaded to the gills SUV that I can't see through is tailgating the crap out of the car in front of her and rather than brake when that car hits it's turn signal she waits until the last 5 feet to merge (without signal) into the other lane, leaving me 3-5 car lengths warning that there is a stopped car in my lane.
Good riddence (Score:2)
V2V was a bad idea from the beginning having subsequently been substantially rendered obsolete by safety systems react to the world as it is rather than assertions of untrusted RF transceivers.
Test Sites (Score:2)
The FCC plan would all but kill an approach to V2X that relies on short-range radio, called DSRC, that has been deployed by local governments at some 100 test sites around the country, safety advocates say. That could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded local investments into smart traffic lights and other smart road technology would be wasted, according to state officials.
These were TEST sites, their decision to invest "hundreds of millions of dollars" in test sites is the problem, not the FCC's decision to re-allocate spectrum after 20 years...
Hey, FCC... (Score:2)
How about building out a broadband network to serve the 20,000,000 Americans like me who can't get any broadband in rural areas.
Enough is enough. Either we're a developed country or we're not. Either it's the 21st century or it's not. Either way, do your fucking job even when it doesn't mean just fattening the wallets of the telecom industry.
fucking neo-cons (Score:2)