backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by Coldfriction.. on Feb 25 at 11:59 AM

The auto industry said it will pose a risk to vehicle-to-vehicle technologies that need this wireless spectrum

Automakers aren't too happy about a recent U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposal, which uses part of the wireless spectrum assigned to vehicle-to-vehicle technology for Wi-Fi instead.

The FCC announced that it plans to free up 195 MHz of spectrum in the 5 GHz band for unlicensed use in an effort to address the U.S.' spectrum crisis. This could potentially lead to Wi-Fi speeds faster than 1 gigabit per second.

The FCC voted unanimously on the topic Wednesday of this week.

However, the auto industry said this would take away previously reserved wireless spectrum for vehicle-to-vehicle technology -- which has the potential to save lives.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which is a trade group consisting of Detroit's Big Three Automakers, Toyota, Volkswagen AG and some other auto companies, is among those who are upset by the FCC's latest proposal.

"[Automakers] already invested heavily in the research and development of these safety critical systems, and our successes have been based on working closely with our federal partners," said the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. "It is imperative that, as we move forward, we do adequate research and testing on potential interference issues that could arise from opening up this band to unlicensed users and that the commission not rush to judgment before this important analysis can be done."

The Intelligent Transportation Society of America added that "the desire of the commission to move forward expeditiously, while cautioning against putting near-term life-saving innovations like connected vehicle technology at risk in the pursuit of future Wi-Fi applications."

The auto industry isn't the only one concerned with the new proposal. Certain government agencies -- like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) -- see commercial users jumping on bands used by these agencies and posing a potential risk in doing so. 

Source: The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: no.
By wordsworm on 2/23/2013 1:26:33 AM , Rating: 2
Nuclear power's true issue will always be with waste disposal. How can we build containers which can outlast the waste?

I don't see the comparison here at all. What kind of catastrophic accident could a computer cause that a human cannot? An airplane crash can kill hundreds. If a computer-controlled vehicle crashes, I don't see how it would be something spectacular like a nuclear melt down either.

In any case, I for one would welcome the chance to take a nap during the commute... I could be making mad love to my wife in the back of the van while it slowly oozes its way into that slurm hole known as Vancouver. Really, who here can honestly say they'd rather drive a car than watch a show, play a game, play nooky with the mrs, etc.?


RE: no.
By Kurz on 2/23/2013 11:35:19 AM , Rating: 2
LFTR google it.
Watch it on Youtube.

Spread the word.


RE: no.
By tng on 2/23/2013 12:39:32 PM , Rating: 2
I was just saying that every tech has it's risks. The problem is that with a traffic control system like is predicted above, there may be no way to evaluate all of the potential failure points without turning the driving public into crash dummies...

In the situation proposed by the gentleman above, a mile long line of cars, all starting and stopping at the same time, has so many issues that need to be addressed.

First not all cars accelerate at the same rate so how will the control compensate for that? The same is true for braking, how much space does the control leave in front of you to stop? If you take into account the spaces between cars that the system will need to compensate for this, suddenly there are allot fewer cars in that "mile long line of cars".

The system is suddenly not as efficient as we would like to believe.


RE: no.
By Coldfriction on 2/23/2013 1:19:31 PM , Rating: 3
You realize with automated traffic the traffic jam wouldn't form to begin with right? It's an attempt to show the potential, not how reality would look.


RE: no.
By tng on 2/23/2013 4:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You realize with automated traffic the traffic jam wouldn't form to begin with right?
Yes, I get it, but I work on some very complex systems that are interconnected with other complex systems through complex processes.

This week I spent hours finding that the root cause of an issue we have had this month is a change that we made in June of last year. There were consequences that have just now propagated through a series of systems, came around and bit us in the a$$.

I am not for or against this type of system, I think that on certain roads this would help, but not on all roads. I also think that this is more complex than just my car talks to your car, or my car taking commands from an integrated system.


RE: no.
By Coldfriction on 2/23/2013 5:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
The existing road system is subject to children throwing rocks at cars, idiots tossing mannequins off of overpasses, drunks, mechanical failures, people on phones, etc. You hear about all the falicies of the existing road system all the time. A terrorist could really just drop spikes out their window to completely shut down traffic on a busy road for hours. Things are always easy to break for people who want to; society exists on a certain level of trust that the vast majority of people don't want to. You think the minor issues with an automated road would be any worse than what we've got? Fear has stopped more great changes in the world than anything else ever could hope to.


RE: no.
By tng on 2/23/2013 8:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You think the minor issues with an automated road would be any worse than what we've got?
Point taken.


RE: no.
By kyuuketsuki on 2/25/2013 11:24:57 AM , Rating: 2
And how the hell would an automated cars/roads do anything at all about rocks being thrown at cars, people tossing debris onto overpasses, mechanical failures, or a "terrorist" throwing spikes out their car window? All those things are in fact one of the major issues with an automated system: making it react appropriately to unexpected situations.


RE: no.
By Coldfriction on 2/25/2013 11:59:28 AM , Rating: 2
You miss the point. There is no zero risk system. The closest thing to a zero risk system is a maximum security prision. The question isn't whether there is risk or not, it's whether the system is better than another system at managing it.

And making automated cars that talk to each other negates a lot of the crazy issues that happen with the things I listed. No crazy reaction from drivers is every bit as good as drivers being able to react to crazy scenarios. Vehicular accidents are rarely caused by sound judgement; rather they are caused by over-reaction. No automated car will swerve in a crazy way for a dummy and cause a multiple car and multiple death pile up. Automated systems allow for sane deceleration upon the detection of a hazard by ONE vehicle if that vehicle can communicate to the rest around it. Currently cars do not communicate hazards beyond brake lights. Automated cars mitigate more risk for the scenarios provided due to a computer not reacting as poorly as a person to unexpected events.


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki