Wireless Net Access in Your Car

Alex writes "If this item is any indicator of the next big rage, then perhaps lawmakers may want to expand the limits on cell phone use in a moving automobile. Broadband2Wireless is about to launch a wireless MAN that would allow one to connect to the internet from anywhere in the city. While the service is not aimed at vehicles, the "company demo-mobile" is bound to attract copy-cats looking to be the first on their block with a network in their car. " 1.5mb for $50 a month? They don't plan to support mobile users quite yet, but the article says they will when they have the coverage. It sure would be awesome.

Comments

Re:Is this a killer app for the car?

[keesh]

And run over how many people on the way? Or get someone to drive for you -- I can't afford that.

Mobiles are pretty dangerous, but computers???

Re:Not limited to cars!

[vought]

"Think of it; 32 or 64 megs of RAM suddenly loses all meaning when you have a fast connection to a hundred gigs! Put this technology on an iPaq and just see what happens!"

My Novatel Wireless Merlin card and Ricochet subscription give my iPaq access to the entire internet at 128kbps anywhere I go at up to 70 m.p.h. in 14 major metro areas.

Think of the possibilities, indeed. This type of service already exists.

It's NOT a traffic jam...

[Hobaird]

...it's a Beowulf cluster. :P

here comes -1

Re:A F1r57 Post from the Interstate

[Roblimo]

... or you could do it safely from my new custom limousine. Of course it's equipped with a Linux laptop and Ricochet wireless modem! :)

And yes, if you want to do limo-LAN, I have a hub, a gateway, and an inverter that'll keep up to 4 laptops charged all the time.

So (yawn) I'm supposed to be impressed with some guy in Boston who has *one* laptop in a lowly stock Mercedes sedan?

- Robin

(for those who Slashdot readers who don't know, I have the "roblimo" nick because I have owned a limo service for many years.)

Re:Ubiquitous connectivity - how much is enough?

[Moofie]

OK, this is a much better topic for discussion, IMHO. I think your thesis is, "Does ubiquitous communication enhance peoples' lives?" Don't let me put words in your mouth, but that's sorta what I'm getting from you.

I argue, "Yes." I carry on a long-distance relationship with my girlfriend. Without telecommunications, this would be impossible. Is it possible to have relationships without telecommunications? Sure. But don't think for a minute that I care any less or am any less devoted to this individual just because she's 1200 miles away from me. I talk to my grandparents more on the telephone than I ever could in real life. (no, my grandmother is not the one I'm having the long distance relationship with. That's gross.)

As far as getting skeeved out by people talking on cell phones, I really don't get it. I mean, would it be any different if they were talking to a person in the pax seat (or worse, in the back seat!)? These are meatspace communications...are they somehow more valid or useful than telepresence ones? (pick your catchall term for "communicating with others using technology")

I dunno...I just don't get what's so magical about meatspace conversations. Well, that's not true...there are avenues of expression and communication that are not available via telecommunications that can happen IRL (heh heh), but at the same time telecommunications has its own advantages and disadvantages.

I don't believe that technology devalues face to face communications: it just changes the set of circumstances that make f2f necessary. (note that f2f can be awfully expensive, say if the faces are on different continents...) Bottom line is, it's not a zero-sum game. I'd rather talk to my girlfriend on the phone than have a beer at the local pub. That doesn't mean I don't like said beer...but the fact that one communique is real and the other is electronic does not bear on their value to me.

Re:Wireless vehicle...

[green1]

Ham radio operators already have a package like this, we callit APRS (Automatic Position Reporting System) basically you hook the GPS up to a radio (usually via a TNC and optionally a computer) to send position reports every few minutes, this is picked up by other APRS stations as well as by base stations which among other things put this info on the internet. as a result there have been several cases almost exactly like the case example above ("oh darn. someone stole my truck.", http://www.aprs.org , 911 "yeah my truck is at the corner of 5th and centre wanna pick it up for me?") the coverage on this is actually pretty good, most cities in north america and many elsewhere have coverage, this protocol also allows for simple text messaging, and all with no monthly fees...

Don't forget...

[peccary]

4. Major fines for running red lights. It's not like they don't warn you well ahead of time, after all. The only reason people run red lights is because they're either (a) not paying attention or (b) too damn important.

5. Where to stop at an intersection. That line there means something, it's so that trucks and buses can turn the corner without driving over you. Extra fines for stopping in crosswalks, or blocking the intersection.

6. Set speeding fines by percentage over the limit, not mere numbers. 15 over in a 15 mph zone is a big relative reduction in your reaction time, unlike 15 over in a 65.

7. Retests cover four-way stops, and right-on-red rules. Don't forget to yield to pedestrians!

8. Forget about testing parallel parking. Who ever got killed because somebody couldn't parallel park? 'Sides, most suburbanites have long since lost their ability to || park, even if they ever had it.

9. Oh yeah, turn signals again. Retests must cover how far in advance of an intersection you must signal, and proper lane positioning before the turn (ie, as far to the appropriate side of the lane as practicable, just like the law says).

10. Hm. I can't think of 10, but there must be one. Oh, I've got it. Major fines for honking at, screaming, and making obscene gestures at other people. It's illegal, after all, and at least as offensive as cellphone use.


OK, who's with me?

Re:Ubiquitous connectivity - how much is enough?

[Infonaut]

Hmm.... very good points.

Your take on my thesis is almost right. I'd actually say it more like this: "At what point does ubiquitous communications stop enhancing peoples lives and start enslaving them?"

I've actually been trying to figure out why it is that I get so bothered by cell phone conversations in public spaces, and I think I've figured it out. For me at least, the biggest thing is that whomever you're communicating with via cell phone instantly becomes the most important person in your consciousness, eclipsing whomever is near you in meatspace. The cell phone becomes the default first priority means of communication, even above face to face. How many times have you seen someone sitting at dinner with a partner and talking to someone else on a cellphone?

It's not that I wanted you to be focusing on me in particular, of course. In fact, most of the time when I walk around downtown, I'm not specifically looking to have any form of predetermined contact with anyone else. But I like being open to the possibility of having a conversation with someone, or interacting with someone in a way that is non-planned, non-efficient. When I look around and see people walking along the sidewalk talking on their cell phones, they seem to be in their own little bubbles, isolating themselves from the world they're moving through. That's entirely their perogative, and again, I certainly don't want that option taken away from anyone. But use of technology is always a choice, though I'm not sure most people understand that when they elect to be in constant communication with the world electronically.

I spend most of my time in an office every day, trying to be as efficient as possible, juggling many tasks, and there's something liberating about being able to go out into the "real world" of random meatspace.

Something about ubiquitous communication makes me feel that there is no escape. When I'm with a group of people, odds are one of them has a cell phone. It's usually impossible to just say "I'm out of reach - I'll be out all night somewhere and you won't be able to contact me," because one of my friends will have a cell phone. Anyone who knows this will be able to reach me. My ability to maintain my freedom from ubiquitous communication has just been eradicated.

In any case, Moofie, you don't seem like the kind of person who would let a cell phone get between you and those around you in meatspace. I suppose I just don't think most people are that aware.

I am on the Web all day, I use email whenever I'm at a computer, but I like being able to walk away from it. Sooner or later I'll have to get a cell phone, because businesspeople no longer accept "I don't have a cell" as an excuse for not being reachable during commuting hours or on vacations. As usual, technology marches on, and society changes as technology is adopted.

I just wanted to point out the direction these great technologies are taking us. The benefits are clear and numerous, but there are some pitfalls. If we recognize them, maybe we won't continue our ongoing slide further and further away from actual in-person communication, with all its nuance, challenges, and subtleties.

Hype

[Animats]

I dunno. I left the site after closing the annoying pop-up and seeing that the main option on the site was "Play Flash Movie". Looks like a classic dot-com loser pattern - hype first, deploy someday.

Wireless MAN

[cswiii]

o/~ Wireless Man, Wireless Man

Doin' the things that your wireless can

What's the latency, it's not important

Wireless Man

Is he bluetooth? Is his IP spoofed?

Do potholes set his data aloof?

Or do his checksums always tell us the truth?

Nobody knows

Wireless Man o/~

another mindless, "one size fits all" law

[mr_death]

I personally think cellphone driving should be dealt with in a similar manner as drunk driving - who's with me?

While most drivers have had to maneuver in extremis to avoid some bozo who isn't paying attention to his or her driving, I heartly oppose any simple-minded "no cellphone use while driving" law.

The problem isn't the use of the cellphone (or shaving, eating, applying makeup, talking to a passenger, etc.) -- the real problem is Driver Judgement (or lack thereof). The government gives minimal training to new drivers, tests them to absurdly simple standards, then gives them a license to drive a two-ton death machine. Any biped with a pulse can get a license. So why would anyone expect said biped to have a clue?

Refuting the claim that "cellphone use is as dangerous as drunk driving" is easy -- just ask any pilot. Pilots navigate in three space, keep the greasy side down, listen and respond to the radio, listen to other people's conversations (and determine if they are affected -- "where is that Learjet who just called in?", for example), and visualize other traffic and topology. They manage to do all these tasks safely and quickly.

The way pilots can handle this kind of workload is simple -- they prioritize their tasks. Aviate, navigate, then communicate. We're trained to say "stand by" to a controller if we're busy with an aircraft control task.

While in a car, I do the same thing. If I'm in heavy traffic, I won't pick up the phone if it rings. However, on a lightly travelled freeway, I will pick up, and increase my following distance. If conditions change (traffic incrases, or it starts raining), I might say "I'll have to call you back". Judgement is the key here.

So, I say we should determine driver judgement by results. Specifically:

1. no mindless "you can't do X while driving" laws.

2. a $10000 fine for any at fault accident, and a 90 day license suspension. You screw up, you pay.

3. Mandatory driver retests every two years. Retests cover freeway driving (how to merge, how to use turn signals, no camping in the passing lane) and emergency procedures (lane change, spin recovery, etc.)

OK, who's with me?

Re:Is this a killer app for the car?

[Ixnert]

Only if by "killer app" you mean those folks you just ran over in the crosswalk while you were reading slashdot...

Ix

Ubiquitous connectivity - how much is enough?

[Infonaut]

Do we *really* need to be that wired (wirelessed?) all the time? Do we really need to talk to people on our cell phones in restaurants while other people are trying to carry on actual face-to-face communications? Do we need to access Slashdot while hiking Mt. Shasta? Have we become so fragmented and scizophrenic that we can't be without instant access to *everything*? Are we that needy?

Re:Ubiquitous connectivity - how much is enough?

[drsoran]

Yes, we have become that wired. It's part of many of our jobs. I would love to turn the pager off and toss it in the drawer after work but that isn't going to happen as long as somebody wants to get streaming wireless porn in their car. *sigh*

Re:Ubiquitous connectivity - how much is enough?

[Moofie]

Your point about the exclusivity of a cell-phone is well taken. Do a thought experiment, though. If two people sitting across from you were conversing in a different language, one that you didn't understand, would it be any different? Would you feel more or less included in their conversation? I agree with you, to a point: using a cell phone in a public forum where normally you'd converse with the people around you for too long can indeed be rude. Having said that, it is possible to have a cell phone conversation with somebody who for whatever reason can't be there IRL, and still be receptive to people near one in meatspace. Not to say it's easy, and it's certainly not necessarily one's default behaviour: but I submit to you that the issue is not the technology (which would not be present in my foreign language scenario) but the sensitivity/desire to be "inclusive" (I hate that word, but you see where I'm going) to the people around one in meatspace.

I dunno, if one of my friends is yapping on a phone for half an hour when I'm trying to have a conversation with them, I razz them good natured-ly. So long as I feel they're not being purposely rude (hey, maybe this is an important conversation they're having...none of my business, but it's not for me to dictate, right?) I don't sweat it.

So again, I don't feel the issue is technology. The issue is etiquette. If one is a courteous and thoughtful individual, no amount of technology is going to change that. If one is not, then one oughtn't be surprised that nobody wants to hang out with one.

Bottom line: my phone (I don't have a cell, but I've conditioned myself to ignore my landline if it's not convenient for me to answer it) doesn't become my master until I let it. Which I don't, so it doesn't. And no, I'm not going to let 'em implant one in my brain stem, thanks for askin'. : )

Re:Ubiquitous connectivity - how much is enough?

[Infonaut]

Of course ubiquitous access won't make people any more or less rude, or more wise or unwise.

I don't mean to imply that somehow people shouldn't be *allowed* to use ubiquitous connectivity. The thrust of my question was that more and more your right to communicate at any time and place interferes with my right to NOT communicate at any time and place.

Let's face it - one-way conversations in the background are disconcerting. They're distracting. When someone's cell phone rings in the middle of me eating my dinner at a restaruant, their communications device is impinging on my dining experience. People are also far likelier in my experience to shout on cell phones than they are in casual conversation in meatspace.

Personally I get freaked out when I see people in front of me, to my left and to my right, and behind me, driving while engaged in a discussion on their cell phone. One hand on the cell phone and the other on the wheel to me indicates a fundamental lack of respect for the fact that they should be in full control of an automobile, because people who don't pay attention tend to cause deadly accidents. I've seen more than enough close calls with cell phone drivers to realize that most of the time they don't even know how many times they've created dangerous situations for other drivers.

I don't care if you play Everquest Online Gold SE in your car (if someone else is driving), but it's not about individual technology advances. It's really about the collective effect of all these technologies being put to use in a society where nobody seems to value face to face communication and actually just being in the same physical space with someone and communicating like human beings, with our own, somewhat passe, built-in communications tools.

Re:Ubiquitous connectivity - how much is enough?

[Infonaut]

Ah, very true. It IS about etiquette. However, my feeling is that sometimes technology dictates etiquette, to the point that old social mores fall by the wayside not through a conscious decision that they are useless, but because people aren't paying attention to what they're doing.

It's not that someone having a loud conversation on their cell phone in a restaurant next to me is trying to be rude, it's that they may not even be aware that they're being rude.

If people are cognizant of how their use of ubiquitous communication affects others, I'm fine with that. However, I'm just not convinced that most people are actually making a conscious choice most of the time. ("Oh, my cell is ringing, do I answer it? Oh, wait, I'm in this environment where others might not appreciate my phone call. Better not answer it.")

So, while you're aware of etiquette, most people in my opinion, aren't prepared to make that challenging decision about whether cell phone use is appropriate in a given situation. I mean, movie theaters have to put messages on screen telling patrons to turn off their cell phones.

Fundamentally, my point is this: Let the user rule the technology, not vice-versa. I think we could both agree on that.

Re:We shouldn't be encouraging car use

[Zachary Kessin]

Well the problem is that for many of us who live outside a major population area if you want to get anywhere you have to drive. I can't take the bus to work or the store, there isn't one. (There are a few busses here in Nashua NH but they don't really go anywhere usefull, like my flat.)

And it would not make sense to put busses in because there are not enough people to ride them.

Re:Mobile office

[GypC]

But who's to say that people might not turn away from the flash, shockwave, and heavy, slow websites and towards a lightweight, text oriented, rapid delivery system?

People already turned away from a "lightweight, text oriented, rapid delivery system" that the web was and "chosen" the "flash, shockwave, and heavy, slow websites". I quote chosen because the consumer didn't really choose. Look at the most popular sites on the web (Yahoo, Amazon), they are fast and plain HTML (more or less). It's the designers and creators who want the latest whiz-bang gadgets and magazine-like designs to hide their lack of taste/talent/content who are to blame for the current sorry state of the WWW.

Maybe mobile devices will change this trend and restore the web to it's natural state of platform independence and end-user display choices.

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.

Last night's Futurama...

[cowboy junkie]

A spaceship is spinning wildly out of control, crashing into everything.

Man: "Oh my God, they must be using a cell phone!"

Personally I think cell phones are a godsend. They finally let us easily identify and avoid the idiot drivers that have existed since the invention of the automobile...

Re:Last night's Futurama...

[alumshubby]

Man: "Oh my God, they must be using a cell phone!" Oh, so that's why the crash happened at Roswell in '47...

Re:The problem is the law...

[bluGill]

I agree, enforce the laws we have. Driving without paying attention is wrong, and it doesn't matter if you are on a cell phone, computer, or just staring at scenery.

As for why I want one? That is easy. I move often, but my cell phone doesn't change numbers. (At least it not so long as I don't move far) The phone is for my convience, and for those few people I want to contact me it is easier if they can call me. Having it on the road is a bonus.

For a computer I want one because mapquest and the like give better driving directions in most cases then anything else. Sometimes the day is too nice to workinside, but I don't want to use vacation. Sitting on a shady park bench and working is much better then in a dark office. Or maybe it ins't a park bench it is on the lake waiting for a fish to bite.

work/data sites Re:Mobile office

[StandardDeviant]

Well, the majority of work data pulled from the intra/inter-net via the web probably has a pretty plain interface to begin with. I mean, how fat does a web2ldap address book need to be? (this is not to say some idiot hasn't done it with a big Flash movie calling data URLs, but hopefully that doesn't happen often). Similarly, news clippings (like for the journalist), stock quotes / business documents, scientific data (interfaces to a LIMS), etc. are all pretty simple, mostly textual data. Even if you tart it up a bit with a few pictures that doesn't change the inherently textual and thus fundamentally low bandwidth nature of the data.

And of course if you're using the wireless bandwidth for a terminal interface (shell access to data, company mail or news, company internal IRC network, etc.), it's probably 28.8 kbps at a max. (of course if you're a looooooong way from the transceiver the lag would be a bitch ;-) (rsh'ing from the moon would suck...))

--
News for geeks in Austin: www.geekaustin.org

Re:Oh boy

[neto_gle]

I don't think you can travel with those because if you leave the range of the base you're connected to, you won't automatically connect to a new base just like your cellphone does. Your connection will be droped and you'll have to receonnect to your new location.
----

Go after "distracted drivers" in general

[cje]

I agree that people who cause accidents because they were yakking on their cell phone should be held accountable. But they should be held accountable because they're irresponsible morons, not because they were talking on a cell phone per se. A cell phone is just one of countless possible distractions that a driver could involve themselves with. Others could be:

• putting on makeup at 65 MPH on the freeway
  
• trying to stop your kids from fighting in the backseat
  
• spreading a packet of ketchup all over a Big Mac
  
• reading a book or a newspaper
  
• putting in a CD or changing the radio station
  
• etc., etc., etc.
  

So if some moron causes an accident because (s)he was distracted by a cell phone, then by all means, throw the book at them. But outright banning cell phone usage is a bit precipitous and draconian; after all, if you're going to do that, you should logically ban stereos, passengers, food, reading material, in-car navigation systems, and anything that could potentially distract a driver from the road. And we don't want to go down that route.

could be Re:Is this really a good thing?

[StandardDeviant]

Well, hopefully the terminal would be on the passenger side and be engineered such that (s)he couldn't reach the keyboard or easily see the screen. Yes, the only damn thing you should be doing if you're in the driver's seat is driving. :-)

Now if you have a passenger, I can see this as being a good thing. The web term would keep them from bugging you while you keep yout eyes on the road (hey, ideal world), and if you forgot a map, they can still play navigator for you using a map website. And if you have a kid up there they can be kept from asking the Dread Question (namely: "while(1) { printf("Are we there yet?!\n");}") by giving them some URLS to pr0n... ;-)

--
News for geeks in Austin: www.geekaustin.org

Re:Wireless vehicle...

[peccary]

How is this better than Lo-Jack? A smidgen easier to locate the vehicle, but more expensive and failure-prone.

For the _car_?

[The Pim]

I rather consider ubiquitous net access a killer app for the train.

Wireless Man

[suwain_2]

Broadband2Wireless is about to launch a wireless MAN

CowboyNeal? I always thought that it was just a joke when he was on the polls. I never knew it was real! Where do I sign up? Now that I look at the polls, this is not new technology -- wireless men serve as things such as household appliances, and much more. He seems to be a very popular poll choice. Where do I get one??
________________________________________________

train Re:Is this a killer app for the car?

[StandardDeviant]

As long as your train is mostly above-ground it'd be easy to mount a transceiver on the train, and then have a LAN on the train (data port on every seat or something, or in special "commuters who like to work" cars that cost a few bucks extra to defer the cost of the modification). Short tunnels could be fixed with rebroadcasters, longer ones with beefier ones. If the tunnel is through something like a mountain you'd probably need a rebroadcaster on the opposite-from-MAN side anyway.

It would be especially nice if they included a three-pronger AC outlet with each ethernet port. Gotta figure, a few dozen laptops would be a negligible power drain compared to an electric turbine powerful enough to move n tons of train + people + cargo... If you're using a gas/diesel turbine you probably have power to spare to run a small generator anyway (and probably are already doing so for the electrical subsystem on the train).

--
News for geeks in Austin: www.geekaustin.org

Not limited to cars!

[Khopesh]

Shame on all of you for only looking at the bad effects of such technology. Should we not accept cellphones because they distract drivers? This is more than internet for the car! (And it works in cars anyway; see my streaming mp3 example below. ...who needs a car cd changer now?)

I want this technology on my handheld device. I want this technology to give me net access in an apartment building that only allows one ISP to wire the building (making it that ISP or nothing) ...

THIS TECHNOLOGY WILL BREAK MONOPOLIES!

I have long awaited a way to get a better net connection at home and to be able to have a palmtop computer that streams mp3s from my multi-gig collection at home. My ideal portable computer fits in my pocket, has color, doubles as a wireless phone, streams mp3s, and streams other information (such as the internet). This is now all possible.

Think of it; 32 or 64 megs of RAM suddenly loses all meaning when you have a fast connection to a hundred gigs! Put this technology on an iPaq and just see what happens!

Re:not just the car

[vought]

- it's a lot cheaper than Ricochet which is only 128Kbps for their $70 something a month service. Granted - Ricochet has a network that works now, but their financials aren't looking too good....

I'll grant you, Ricochet costs about $75.00/mo. But it has a lot that this system doesn't.:

• Ricochet covers 48 million people in 14 population centers - literally hundreds of municipalities. The system referenced in the article covers...part of Boston.
• Ricochet is shipping today - at a price that business people with legitimate business needs are happy to pay.
• Ricochet is available as a 4-oz. external device with a 6hr. battery life, or as one of two different PC cards. The service in the article requires two external antennas and a transciever inside the car. So much for "true mobility".
• Ricochet uses two slices of free spectrum - 900-915MHz and 2.4GHz - as well as the 2.3GHz licensed spectrum, owned by Metricom, the developer of Ricochet. That's a lot more spectrum than available to the Broadband2wireless system. What happens when B2W devices run into interference?

Ricochet seems to be a much more reliable service for mobile professionals. It's available today in several markets, is protected by patents, and has a backup plan in the 2.3 GHz spectrum. B2W is just a copycat applying LAN technology in a microcellular architecture.

Here's a new idea for an in-car activity...

[Anonymous Coward]

... I like to call it "driving". Maybe you people with cellphones and TVs and Internet access in your cars should try it sometime?

Is this really a good thing?

[C.Thomas]

After nearly being hit by drivers talking on cell phones, I am really not relishing the idea of these same people surfing the web while driving. I personally think cellphone driving should be dealt with in a similar manner as drunk driving - who's with me?

Mobile office

[perdida]

GOSH I need this. I have been waiting for this for years.

We do not need to clog up our infrastructures anymore by locating the offices in the few widely dispersed areas with the high bandwith..

we can decentralize these operations, saving space, energy, commute time, the air, preventing sprawl.

As a journalist I would love to be able to step into my car and have all my databases, research and editing tools at my fingertips.

I am aware this will come with an accompanying loss of speed. It's not my fat university T-1. But who's to say that people might not turn away from the flash, shockwave, and heavy, slow websites and towards a lightweight, text oriented, rapid delivery system? A fast-downloading site will become marketable again if its market is wireless.

We should all SLOW THE HELL DOWN for a bit, anyway.

Is this a killer app for the car?

[kyz]

I mean, I don't know about the next guy, but the thought of broadband access on the move would convince me to stop taking the train to work and start driving a car.

Re:Content is what counts (function over form)

[GypC]

Actually, I do write to the webmasters... I lately wrote to guinness.com about their flash-laden site that would not let me browse with Navigator 4.x on FreeBSD.

It's a simple thing for the "web designer" (read: overpaid shmuck, by my experience) to put in a text only page that will appear when the user-agent cannot load their default page.

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.

Good for maps and OnStar-like services...

[Bonker]

... Not so good when you're playing EQ or Q3A while stuck in downtown traffic.

Seriously, depending on the range of this kind of WAN, assuming it's going to run something like cellular or PCS, this could be a serious boon to those who like the in-car navigation systems or services like OnStar. Since OnStar is supposed to be able to do things like unlock your car doors, I'd want a data-firewall to go along with my engine firewall to keep some l33t script-kiddies from haxxoring my car and going for joy-rides.

The idea of being able to play EQ (I think Q3 or Unreal Tournament wouldn't be able to hack the lag) as a *passenger* during a long commute or roadtrip would be a pretty damn nifty.

"Billy, you stop downloading porn back there or I'm turning this car right back around!"

Research so far...

[3G]

Has people from Daimler-Chrysler in Germany controlling their prototype cars from the 'net already. In fact, they've already created a peer-to-peer networking system that allows drivers to exchange, for example, their insurance information automatically after an accident (assuming the thing isn't totaled. More on this from TheFeature. Carnegie Mellon has been looking into this for some time as well.

Re:Wireless vehicle...

[romco]

that works both ways....

Cops want you.
Cops log on to yourpage.com
Cops put your 2o out on the radio
your busted

Be very carfull what you wish for.

Been there, done that ...

[Tjp($)pjT]

I did a cross country trip just about a year ago with a Cobalt Qube 2 as a server, my Sprint PCS phone for WAN connections and an 802.11b network (an Apple Airport connected to the Qube, a G3 Powerbook, and a CTX P166 notebook). It worked fine in transit and from motel rooms to the car. Sprint PCS (using the Startac phone in digital modem mode) connecting back to my home network and out to the world as needed.

Re:Wireless vehicle...

[StandardDeviant]

You could already do this I suppose using the already-extant satellite internet access systems. But why would you want to if you live in range of the MAN? Yes, the bandwidth is about the same, but your latency will be MUCH less than to a satellite transceiver (the difference it take an EM wave to travel from car to city 10 miles distant and back (way shorter than you'd notice) compared to from your car to orbital bird and back (quarter second and up depending on altitude)). Wouldn't matter for email and web surfing probably but net games and remote shelling would really be feeling the difference.

--
News for geeks in Austin: www.geekaustin.org

Cell phone user / drunk drivers

[SpinyNorman]

Actually New York is trying to do exactly that. There's some dispute about whether NYC will go first or whether they'll try to make it law for the whole state right away.

It turns out (the reason they're doing it) that cell phone users cause just as many accidents as drunks!

Now I Have a Reason to Buy a Unimog

[Prof_Dagoski]

Great. As if cel phones aren't a big enough distraction for drivers. I've about had it with cel phone implanted yuppies in sport UTs running me off the road. Now this. Just wonderful. Its Mad Max time.

A F1r57 Post from the Interstate

[the_other_one]

could earn you a Darwin Award

Wireless vehicle...

[Arethan]

I'd be more interested in a cheap wireless Internet access that is satellite driven. Then I could justify putting a system in my truck. (Computer system, not stereo) Link that with GPS, and give it a dummy mode that makes it look like nothing but a touch screen radio to thieves, and I'll never have to worry about my vehicle getting stolen.

Walk outside
"Oh darn. Someone stole my truck."
Walk back inside.
Log on to Internet. Go to http://www.mywebpage.com.
Looky there! My truck keeps updating my webserver with its position. Call authorities. Explain situation, and give location of felons. Smile widely knowing that I will have my vehicle back in about 20 minutes.

Safety Features

[Alien54]

Maybe these things should be dis-abled when the car is in motion or something.

I mean, how many things can I do at one time that require 100% of my attention?

no, wait, maybe my GF might want to download some pr0n for me for when we get back to the house...

. . . right.

internet radio

[mr_burns]

finally our minds won't be the ground for coroprate radio marketers dumping britney spears and eminem!!!

live365.com

now all the small timers and indie rockers will be on equal footing with CBS Radio.

All of a sudden, the RIAA's marketing monopoly just got a punch in the gut. We have a better distribution system. Soon we'll have control over what songs get beamed to our cars and radios....at least get to pick the station our friends set up with all the new, local, cool stuff.

Now all we need is a live365 type thing for music videos.

Internet killed the video star!!!

I can see the headlines now

[silent_poop]

"Man causes 7 car pile-up, distracted by porn."

--

Re:Oh boy

[sacherjj]

See, it is all OK. We are getting bigger and bigger cars, so we are allowed to drive without thinking. When they bounce into each other, the large masses should protect us, right? I only ask one thing. As you drive down the road in your new Ford Planet, talking on the cell phone, browsing the web, and getting 3 miles to the gallon, PLEASE try not to run over me as I choose to ride a bicycle to work, instead of traveling in my inhuman metal coffin. Too often we only answer if we can do it, not that pesky should we do it question.

Swell

[Greyfox]

As if I didn't have enough problems with the jackasses with their cell phones. You know it's going to be some dipshit in an SUV rear-ending you because he was E-Mailing someone in stop and go traffic...