Slashdot Mirror


Carmakers Oppose Opening Up 5GHZ Spectrum Space For Unlicensed Wi-Fi

s122604 writes "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."

10 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Why is there a wi-fi crisis? by DeathFromSomewhere · · Score: 5, Informative

    Do you only have one device in your house? Because I'm pretty sure a lot of us have multiple.

    Remember kids, "I can't use this" is not the same thing as "nobody can use this".

    --
    -1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
  2. Re:Why is there a wi-fi crisis? by BStocknd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just because your internet is limited to 16mbit doesn't mean there's no advantage to faster wireless. The best example would be transferring files or watching HD videos over wireless from a local share. Not to mention there could be plenty of applications outside of personal use in your home. Think of large WDS meshes for example.

  3. Show me the money by goodmanj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm one of those pinko liberal democrats. But where electromagnetic spectrum is concerned, I'm as mercenary as they come.

    If car makers want spectrum, they can buy it just like everybody else. The FCC should put the entire radio spectrum up for sale to the highest bidder on a rotating 10-year cycle, nothing exempt except for a few bands set aside for emergency services, military, and scientific use.

    FM radio, TV, taxicabs, ham radio, I don't care: if you want exclusive use of a slice of spectrum, you form a coalition of like-minded people willing to pay for it. If somebody else wants to pay more, go find a better business model.

  4. Re:Why is there a wi-fi crisis? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Funny

    And you have never copied files from one device to the other.

    He does, he's just ultra paranoid and routes it all through TOR.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  5. Re:It's about money, as usual by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The public should have dibs on some of that.

    But..but..Job Creators!

    They oppose the public having any access to the spectrum for the same reason all the major corporate entities don't want you to have access to any nice things without they get get a nickel in they pocket for it.

    They let the internet get away from them and they vowed to never let it happen again. In their minds, the internet should have been cable television on steroids, not some big open bazaar where people can post blogs calling them assholes. They got caught with their pants down on that one, and they'll be damned if they're going to let it happen again.

    Oh, and eternal copyright. Because they can.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  6. Re:Why is there a wi-fi crisis? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Watching the game from your Cable TV on your portable device out on the deck, or by the pool?

    Oh man, you got a pool? Geez, I bet that's nice. I got a back yard full of snow.

    I never get nice stuff.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  7. Re:It's about money, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uh, no. It's the public's spectrum. The FCC runs it for us, and leases it out to corporations, WHO PAY US for the right to use it.

    A landlord might lease out a room, and under the terms of that lease may not be allowed to enter the room unannounced any more, but that doesn't mean the landlord is no longer the owner.

  8. Re:It's about money, as usual by smpoole7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > so long as it plays nicely with others

    Ah, that's the rub, though. You'd still need some regulation and certified, per-manufactured units that were sealed against tampering. If you're suggesting that we just throw a giant chunk of spectrum out for people to do with as they please, it will be unusable within a year or two from all the interference. Even worse, it will be interfering with other services, including some of MY licensed ones. :)

    Naturally, I object to that.

    You want some math? Bozo The Redneck has a 5GHz unit that he has "improved." To get away from all of his neighbors' emissions, he found a little screw inside that would lower his frequency to 4.5GHz. Hey, there wasn't anyone else there! He then discovered that it would "put out more better" if he removed that silver can on the output (i.e., the filter). Harmonics are simply multiples of the fundamental frequency, so now he's radiating junk at 9GHz, 13.5GHz, and 18GHz. This doesn't even include the *spurious* products that he's generating at heaven-only-knows what frequencies, because he also goosed the power, so now the amplifier is clipping like mad. :)

    That's when I perk up and take notice, because I have a licensed Dragonwave link at 18GHz that we absolutely depend on. It ferries (via audio-over-IP, as well as one T1-over-IP that was a BEAST to set up, but that's a separate story!) several signals for our radio stations, as well as telemetry and video monitoring (to watch for the @#$@#$ copper thieves). We kind of depend on that thing, y'know?

    And if you think that's an unlikely scenario, think back to the CB craze of the late 70's. Most truck stops sold linear amplifiers. Highly illegal, but that didn't stop people from buying them. Better yet, the bozos had no idea how to tune them, so they radiated trash and harmonics that absolutely destroyed TV reception in rural areas, where people had to depend on over-the-air antennas -- i.e., the very areas that were most likely to have rednecks running "LEE-nyers." It was a very real problem, and the FCC (the CB's called him "uncle Charlie") was constantly running around, busting people for running these pieces of junk.

    Just turning frequencies over to the public sounds like a good idea, but most people don't know what they're doing. As someone who loves Open Source and Open Standards and all that, it grieves me to say it, but in this particular case, you'd better have some oversight and control.

    If you don't, the end result is going to be that everyone interferes with everyone else and NO ONE will be able to communicate. Read up on the history of the FCC sometime: it was actually created (at least in part) at the request of *broadcasters,* who were sick and tired of constant interference, scrambling for "open" frequencies and no real limits on operation.

    --
    Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
  9. Car to Car Spectrum is needed. by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problem with this article is people have no idea why the car manufacturers are upset, all they see is some big corporation opposing the release of more unlicensed public spectrum (and some sensationalist WIFI BS by bloggers). Or course this draws out the communists among us that want all corporations to go away.

    This all fails to miss the entire point of why the Auto companies are opposing this. This spectrum is directly adjacent to spectrum allocated for intercar communication. What is intercar communication? It's spectrum that was allocated a number of years ago to allow direct communication between vehicles. What is the point of that? Well one of the key aspects of this spectrum is that without it you don't have reliable inter-car communication which will greatly hamper self driving cars.

    See, if you are going to have self driving cars those cars need to be able to communicate with each other, they need to tell the cars around them that they need to change lanes, or that they are breaking. The holy grail of self driving cars is a situation where cars are driving 70MPH with about 2 feet between them. This will greatly increase the density of cars and allow the freeways to operate about 200% more efficiently than now. But for that all to work that cars have to tell each other what they are doing so the other vehicles can react. Even with no perception-reaction time for computers you will greatly decrease the possible efficiency if the cars can't communicate real time. The only way to make this safe is dedicated spectrum with low interference.

    If we have thousands of WIFI signals in adjacent spectrum there will be so much interference that the systems won't be reliable, the result will either be safety problems or drastically reduced efficiency. Self driving cars are a holy grail of ITS (intelligent transportation systems) that has been being pursued since the early 90's. It will result in freeways that are so much more efficient than today that you could fit 3-4 times the number of cars in the same freeway without any slow downs or rush hour traffic jams. Not only that but you could read a book while driving to work.

    We don't want to impede or endanger self driving cars. The car manufacturers concerns about interference need to be taken seriously.

    1. Re:Car to Car Spectrum is needed. by pubwvj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The holy grail of self driving cars is a situation where cars are driving 70MPH with about 2 feet between them."

      I will read the newspaper stories in the future about the incredibly massive pileups of enormous numbers of self-driving cars on your highways.

      Self-driving cars need to also be using vision, radar, sonar - all their senses. Relying on just one sense is folly. The reality of the world is that not everyone will play nice and they'll have to be able to adapt to that, or die.

      Any self-driving cars can't adapt to radio interference then they will die off, litter along the road of technological progress. The driving force will be the litigation against the self-driving cars that crash.