Slashdot Mirror
Why is Comcast Using Self-driving Cars To Justify Abolishing Net Neutrality? (theverge.com)
Earlier this week, Comcast filed its comments in favor of the FCC's plan to eliminate the 2015 net neutrality rules. While much of the document was devoted to arguments we've heard before -- Comcast believes the current rules are anti-competitive and hurt investment, but generally supports the principles of net neutrality -- one statement stood out. The Verge adds: Buried in the 161-page document was this quirky assertion (emphasis ours): "At the same time, the Commission also should bear in mind that a more flexible approach to prioritization may be warranted and may be beneficial to the public... And paid prioritization may have other compelling applications in telemedicine. Likewise, for autonomous vehicles that may require instantaneous data transmission, black letter prohibitions on paid prioritization may actually stifle innovation instead of encouraging it. In other words, Comcast is arguing for paid prioritization and internet fast lanes to enable self-driving cars to communicate better with other vehicles and their surrounding environment, thus making them a safer and more efficient mode of transportation. The only problem is that autonomous and connected cars don't use wireless broadband to communicate. When cars talk with each other, they do it by exchanging data wirelessly over an unlicensed spectrum called the Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) band, using technology similar to Wi-Fi. The FCC has set aside spectrum in the 5.9GHz band specifically for this purpose, and it is only meant to be used for vehicle-to-everything (V2X) applications. That includes vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and vehicle-to-pedestrian (V2P) -- so cars talking to other cars, to traffic signals, to the phone in your pocket... you name it. Soon enough, all cars sold in the US will be required to include V2V technology for safety purposes, if the Department of Transportationâ(TM)s new rule goes into effect.
I'm guessing they will advertise these cars as running in the internet fast lane...
I don't know if this is a shit submission or a shit article or both. They're not talking about priority between the vehicles and base stations, they just say in general. The idea being that the traffic still has to flow along the ground between base stations
usually you do that shit with hardware and peering agreements and such so fuck comcast still, but fuck this article and you too
Fr0st P1st, baby!
Last time we had this discussion Verizon claimed we needed to have "fast lanes" to help handicapped people on the internet. None of this has anything to do with reality, just trying to muddy the waters.
Do you have ESP?
What else can they do when their position has no rational defense?
I propose we make a dark net for self driving cars that doesn't route through comcast nodes. Problem solved.
Clearly they are writing for an audience that doesn't understand any of the issue behind Net Neutrality - and they are throwing anything at the problem that might sound like a "job killer" that might 'stick'.
If they say that autonomous cars need a non-neutral net - then that will be believed by the lawmakers - who are told continually about the US lead in this technology and how it's very popular with the general public...and lawmakers up and down the country are rushing out laws to allow them to be driven in various states. They wouldn't want to throw a valuable/popular idea like that out the window because of Net Neutrality - so this makes a great throw-away line for Comcast - even though it's a blatant falsehood. That falsehood will never become obvious to lawmakers until it's far too late.
Comcast are now "officially evil" - but since I think they were already on my "officially evil" list, I guess not much changed.
www.sjbaker.org
HURR, I'm a DURR
Why would they ever communicate with other cars over an ISP's network? By its very nature, it adds more hops to the data travel time, and if data between autonomous cars is needed 'instantaneously"(thus needing an internet fast lane), why would they ever want to add additional hops, and therefore additional delays?
Years ago when ESPN goal line was new and directv did not have it made a big deal about it but kind of lied a about one big thing the ad's where in HD but the channel was not and is still not in HD on comcast.
Comcast has marking that says unlike satellite we don't have contracts (but they do for some deals)
That doesn't need a high priority channel. High priority channels should be for emergencies. A self driving car should be able to handle emergencies without an internet connection, otherwise the technology isn't ready.
They do not NOW you blithering morons, but are you really willing to preclude they never will????
This. Vehicle to ANYTHING means that the other end may be on a wired internet connection. Comcast doesn't provide just "wireless broadband" (and they're new to that, even), they have wired business services.
They know they've got an uphill battle in trying to justify their "prioritizing" traffic so they're trying to blitz lawmakers and the public by throwing anything at the wall that they think might stick thus covering their true intentions (double/triple charging people/businesses for their already paid for bandwidth & blocking competition on their networks).
As for Waze, you don't need Waze data 1/3 of a second faster on an ISP 'fast lane'. Waze gives you plans for driving and alerts you to things miles away. Getting it a third of a second faster isn't going to make you avoid a massive traffic jam any better.
It's not like Comcast is well known for their truthfulness and transparency. To them, the best way to destroy NN is pile on "alternative truths" via PR like this. They know it's a sound idea on the technical side, so using a false pseduo-technical argument against it is the best way to confuse "the masses". We all know they started with some boiler-room with "destroy NN" on the whiteboard, and the marketing drones have a long list of potential knock-downs, focus groups, test campaigns, etc. Comcast knows full well that NN has nothing to do with V2V, but are just throwing everything to the anti-NN wall to see what sticks.
We all know that, especially with the current administration, "public comments" really have little affect. The real "voice" is the lobby money behind the scenes. This is just a "reason" for the FCC to overturn, so they won't seem to be too corrupt to "the public".
Not this again. They're trying to say that Net Neutrality interferes with traffic shaping, which it doesn't. Net Neutrality prevents discrimination against *from whom* a certain type of data transfer is provided, not discrimination of the data type itself. We need an XDCD comic to clear this up.
My understanding is that the internet has always had a provision for marking Quality of Service (QOS) on packets. But I've never understood how that is supposed to work. And to what extent is this different from the whole anti-neutral fast lane.
My past thinking is that the difference is precisely this: Neutrality means content neutrality. If streaming movies need a higher QOS not to stutter then they could be placed in a lower latency channel without violating net neutrality, provided every movie content provider had equal access to claim that QOS.
Where it gets fuzzy is if you have to pay for QOS. Does an ISP have to charge every movie provider in the above example the exact same rate? If it's the same rate Could they for example barter special deals for their "partners" and claim "equivalent" compensation through phoney booked charges?
or is QOS meant to be done without charging. How does one not have a tragedy of the commons if it's free to mark your packets urgent.
lots I don't understand here.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Why is Comcast Using Self-driving Cars To Justify Abolishing Net Neutrality?
Because they CAN. Besides, it's a car analogy, and everyone understands car analogies. Only nerds use those weird computery things, unlike phones.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
The way QoS is supposed to work is that the endpoints (e.g. you and/or the website you are trying to visit) set the QoS values in the packet header and the infrastructure in between is supposed to honor that. Nobody would complain about that if it's what was happening, but it's not.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I don't understand it either. But to me, it seems like if there was some standard way of marking packets as needing QOS on the internet, everyone would just mark there's as needing the highest level. It's kind of like my e-mail inbox these days; everybody marks their e-mails as important and so the marking means nothing to me anymore.
I guess if you value speed over packet loss you use UDP, and if you value guaranteed delivery over speed you use TCP.
And why the fuck does an autonomous car need to send/receive priority traffic to ANYTHING with a wired connection? All data traffic necessary for autonomous driving is going to be short range mesh network style wireless communication with other vehicles and roadway traffic management devices.
You sound like one of those people that think your toaster needs a bloody internet connection.
Competitiveness from Comast Pont of view is ability to trample competition with the help of the law.
Which is the exact opposite of what it supposed to be.
Their defense is an autonomous car design that is simply insecure. If your car depends on data transmission it is broken, it will be hacked, people will die, and it will be the designer's fault as much as the hacker's.
All of our lawmakers are ignorant shit for brain's who dont know the difference tween their ass and a hole in the ground, make any argument you like as long as you are convincing, and have a fuckton of money, its good enough!
To the best of my understanding, packet prioritization is only an issue when a router is congested... if the devices are talking directly to eachother becuase they are on the same subnet (which vehicles should be, if they are communicating directly to eachother), then as long as you use dedicated wireless access points that are strictly for inter-vehicle communication, you won't need to worry about prioritizing your data before anyone else's. These access points can communicate directly with known nearby access points via their own layer1/layer2 mechanisms, rather that depending on a network or transport protocol to achieve it, and rather than using the greater Internet to achieve that communication (since vehicles that are far enough apart that you would even need to send data that far are unlikely to need to communicate with eachother anyways).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Is anyone else more concerned about the little comment right before the highlighted one? Namely: "And paid prioritization may have other compelling applications in telemedicine". Like what ? 'User can't see a doctor or make an appointment without paying us!'
You're thinking about the immediate surroundings around the SDC which are relevant to steering and avoiding collisions and accidents. These situations have a limited range for useful data. More relevant and common situations on a day to day basis in a world with SDCs and cars driven by humans is routing information for the SDC. How is it going to determine if there is a congestion for a route roughly 2 miles ahead? You need to either route this information from vehicle to vehicle, which may or may not be possible depending on traffic density leading up to the problem area, or use a ISP's infrastructure to make this data available to the SDC.
Problem is that's a system which relies on trust. Ie: in actual practice every one would set inappropriate priorities, and the system would be much the same as it is now ( all traffic "equal" ).
The problem with net neutrality is that there is a legitimate argument to be made against it. Network Admins prioritize traffic on their networks, after all, in order to deliver better service. It's not unreasonable for internet carriers to have the same goals. Where it goes off the rails is that every single person involved knows that the carriers can't be trusted to appropriately prioritize traffic, instead leveraging it to the point of breaking the internet all to make a few bucks.
I'd be interested in a Internet Prioritization solution which did not allow carriers to blackmail service providers but instead were forced to apply and respect appropriate QoS flags.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
The ISP would just clean the flag on packets sent by mere mortals. And usually they use ATM anyway, so you can't possibly interfere with such traffic.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
You started off Comcast's quote with an opening double quote, but you never closed it. So it looks like the rest of the summary is the quote when it's clearly not.
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
While QOS was originally planned across the internet as a whole, it mostly only got used in Intranets to prioritize VOIP and video for conferencing. Companies can control it and make all parties play by the rules they set up. The internet at a large is too much of a free for all for that.
They've bought everyone they needed to. Why would they need sensible arguments? They can just let their PR have a bit of fun making up whatever they damn well please, because the decision has been purchased in their favor from the start.
If/When ISPs destroy Net Neutrality they won't honor your QOS markings, if they do use QOS for NN they will remark packets to their own rule sets on ingress.
QoS is about prioritizing certain types of traffic independent of who is sending or receiving it.
Net neutrality is about prioritizing traffic based on who is sending or receiving it.
You're suggesting that we should allow for the possibility that vehicle safety will come to depend on a paid service from a cable company. And calling other people morons.
Interesting.
The problem with net neutrality is that there is a legitimate argument to be made against it.
Perhaps there is, but I honestly have yet to hear such an argument.
"The internet is down agai ..." CRASHBANGBOOM
A self-driving car should be self-driving. One that needs an internet connection to elsewhere by definition isn't a self-driving car.
But Comcast knows how stupid politicians are - they rarely read the laws they pass.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
My understanding is that the internet has always had a provision for marking Quality of Service (QOS) on packets.
AFAIK, no one obeys QOS. Anywhere. I'd be surprised if anything is actually looking at QOS field, much acting upon it.
And how is that (your post) news? It's been true since long before the internet.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Because Comcast is a scummy company filled with lying liars who will say or do anything that they think will make them more money.
Problem is that's a system which relies on trust.
That's not a problem if your QoS settings are evaluated against only your traffic. In other words, if you mark all of your packets high-priority, none of them really will be because they're all in the same priority queue. If implemented properly, the only one you can screw is yourself.
You buy bandwidth from your ISP, your bandwidth, in aggregate, is equal to everyone else's. You open a connection to Slashdot and begin sending and receiving packets with "normal priority" QoS headers; you then open a connection to your VoIP provider to make a call and begin sending them packets with "high priority" QoS headers. If you, then, saturate your available bandwidth, your connection to Slashdot will suffer but your VoIP call should not. Setting both to "high priority" negates any possible benefit to yourself but does not affect anyone else because your traffic isn't being evaluated against theirs.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
RTFA Moron:
"To be sure, all cars of the future will need to communicate wirelessly, but what Comcast won’t acknowledge is that they won’t need the internet to do it. "
Fucking stupid people.
"The internet is down agai ..." CRASHBANGBOOM
That statement is too stupid for words. Assuming that a data connection that can provide safety information in real time is required to keep a vehicle from crashing is just moronic. Reducing risks is a valid reason to have a high priority data channel, because reducing risks can save lives. It doesn't mean that every car will crash when that data isn't available.
And, I'll point out, this is just one example of what might be valuable to have in the future. It isn't the only reason.
What sort of idiot do you have to be to believe such nonsense as this? So-called 'self driving cars' have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 'net neutrality' or anything Comcast has anything to do with!
To be sure, all cars of the future will need to communicate wirelessly, but what Comcast wonâ(TM)t acknowledge is that they wonâ(TM)t need the internet to do it.
And as my summary noted there are really good reasons why they WILL use the internet, so good in fact you have to be an idiot to proclaim they will not...
And I see you are proclaiming they will not. If the shoe fits THAT well...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hi, Durr! I'm a Hurr.
All information for steering for SDCs is short range. Navigation is a different beast and can utilize data from longer distances than V2X transmissions.
Except that what Comcast is arguing is that they need to be able to create prioritized 'fast lanes' for electronic communications so that the communication between the car and the 'other end' has low latency. Not the communication between the 'other end' and whatever network it's connected to. The connection between cars and between cars and roadside traffic systems is not, and will not be, in a spectrum block controlled by any commercial wireless provider. Comcast could create 'fast lane' wireless that covers 100% of the country with quadruple redundancy, and it would have zero effect on inter-vehicle communications.
This is a classic piece of misdirection. Comcast is presenting inter-vehicle communications as an application of wireless technology that requires low-latency data exchange, knowing that the average reader is going to nod sagely in recognition that this is true, and then be more willing to accept Comcast's claim that they need to be able to create paid 'fast lanes' for internet and wireless communications because of it... because the average reader isn't going to know that neither Comcast nor any other wireless provider has any control over the spectrum that will be used for inter-vehicle communications.
The argument it is already circumvented in the micro and Denial of Service attacks will continue to work as long as there are no larger controls, since the solution that is universally engaged in, is larger controls on traffic shaping. Welcome to the world.
I've seen this kind of horseshit come up lots of times; in Brocade too long ago. In large corporations,
top management is either drinking the Kool-Aid, Or maybe intentionally coming up with ridiculous bogus assertions that
anyone familiar with technology and a few brain cells could clearly recognize as bogus.
Network neutrality and self-driving cars have nothing to do with each other.
Also, network neutrality is not about "No paid prioritization"; it's about no paid prioritization of different products or services based on throttling or accelerating certain websites on the same internet (that thus exist at the same level of service) based on business reasons behind the scenes -- or other providers' competitive nature or refusal to pay extra eyeball taxes.
Network neutrality don't prevent you from selling an entirely separate network service to consumers AND sharing backbone infrastructure, and providing those separate network systems different priority.
If streaming movies need a higher QOS not to stutter then they could be placed in a lower latency channel
The only kind of streaming movie that needs low-latency is two-way live video conferencing. Everything else can pre-buffer on a high-latency connection just fine.
As for Waze, you don't need Waze data 1/3 of a second faster on an ISP 'fast lane'.
Let's say the car ahead of me registers a pothole. For whatever reason the inter-car communication link has failed or simply cannot work between our models of cars.
It records the pothole and sends that information to FutureWaze.
I now have much less than 1/3 sec to get that information back. Whatever it is (object, pothole, water, etc) I need to know in under 1/10 or a second or better so the car can start slowing down or maneuvering to avoid.
I mean think of what you are fundamentally saying here. It's like Bill Gates saying "1/3 of a second should be fast enough for anything". Its a monumental failure of understanding the possibilities the future offers us all, and what becomes possible if you are willing to say "no speed is fast enough". You are literally CRIPPLING (or outright killing) all kinds of future technology simply for the sake of what???
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Is traffic prioritization (i.e.: giving some uses of the network greater priority than others) against net neutrality?
Technically yes.
So would you want your car's telemetry screwed by the guy in the next car's bittorrenting?
QoS is about prioritizing certain types of traffic independent of who is sending or receiving it.
No, "QoS" is about prioritizing traffic. Period. Doesn't matter whether you applied the tags based on the type of service, or on the identity of the sender or the receiver, or for any other reason you felt like it.
If TFA is going to try to pick at Comcast's logic here, they might want to try to be logical about it. Comcast did not say the "instantaneuos data transmission" required was for V2V. Said author put those words in Comcast's mouth. There are plenty of other scenarios in which a vehicle may require prioritized communications with something not in range of its V2V radio... do you think a V2V traffic control system is going to be wired together solely with daisy chained V2V radios? No. And it isn't made out of unicorn farts either. On the back end of that is a plain old network. Any communications from a car to something not within a couple hundred feet of itself is going to need to travel across that network and god design practices say you get it off the interference-laden RF spectrum ASAP and backhaul it. Especially if it happens on the border between two municipal systems or involves a third party, some of this will cross the Internet.
Ghod I hate arguing on Comcast's behalf. Please people stop saying stupid shit so I can go take a shower.
Someone had to do it.
so that the communication between the car and the 'other end' has low latency. Not the communication between the 'other end' and whatever network it's connected to.
If you don't understand the internet then just please say so. If a vehicle is making an internet connection to something AT THE OTHER END (and there is always "the other end") and the other end is not getting the packets from the vehicle in a timely manner, then it cannot RESPOND in a timely manner. A "paid fastlane" isn't just for the "vehicle end" of the data, it applies to the full path from vehicle to ANYWHERE.
Comcast could create 'fast lane' wireless that covers 100% of the country with quadruple redundancy, and it would have zero effect on inter-vehicle communications.
Two problems with that statement. First, if Comcast creates such a massive infrastructure and the other anticipated infrastructure isn't built out as fast, then Comcast may become the carrier of choice. Rules change. Times change. Governments are often slow to build up the stuff they plan on building. (I have a statewide Oregon Wireless Information Network -- OWIN -- to sell you if you don't believe me. And lots of localities that were planning on being a part of that network but aren't.)
But more important, vehicle to ANYWHERE includes vehicle to wired other end, and Comcast is a very big player in the "wired other end" services already.
Comcast is presenting inter-vehicle communications
I don't believe they put such a limit on the reason.
I'd want my car's autopilot to be completely autonomous.
Have gnu, will travel.
Why is Comcast (doing the same, dishonest shit it always does?)
Wait, I think I answered the question by accidentally typing the question wrong...
QoS has only limited usefulness if it's stripped at the ISP's edge, and that's the problem.
In an ideal world, I think we'd all love to have QoS control over our traffic from it's origin to termination ( my phone server to digium's SIP gateway, for instance ). However, the problem is as I mentioned; while I might follow the rules, I'd be in the minority. The ISPs are the only ones in the right position to affect and implement appropriate QoS.
Which of course they wouldn't. No one believes that. Which is where we are today. Internet wide QoS would be ideal, but there's no effective way to implement because doing so would rely on trust.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Have gnu, will travel.
"To be sure, all cars of the future will need to communicate wirelessly, but what Comcast won’t acknowledge is that they won’t need the internet to do it. "
Sure, they don't need it, but it sure as hell is a lot cheaper to use than implementing their own infrastructure.
That's not my understanding of net neutrality at all. I always thought it was more a packet / host level prioritization thing. Blocking is, arguably, different, and does not fall under net neutrality. Nor does end point firewall and filtering.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
In the event an autonomous vehicle detects a service interruption with something outside its V2V range which it is relying on, a proper design would have a fallback course of action. That doesn't mean vehicles won't be using realtime communication outside of their V2V range.
Someone had to do it.
lots I don't understand here.
Indeed. You're confused about the basic premis. The answer to your question is:
Neutrality allows for different tier of service but not for the ISP to decide who gets what tier based on the content they send, nor to make the cost 'disappear' if they are also the content provider, or have cut a deal with one content provider that they would not entertain in general.
So, for example:
Netflix pays Comcast for both the upload and download cost of their data, so instead of counting your Netflix bytes against your cap the ISP counst them against Netflix's. (OK)
As above, but it's Comcast "paying themselves" the fee for HBO Go packets if and only if you also have the HBO cable subscription with Comcast (Not OK)
Comcast agrees to accept Netflix's zero rating deal, but refuses YouPorn's equivalent offer because of the content (not OK)
Netflix pays for priority routing of their packets, but YouTube does not resulting in noticeable difference in latency (OK)
Comcast makes a Zero rating deal with Netflix that includes an exclusivity clause that prevents them from Zero rating Amazon Prime Video. (Not OK)
Comcast decided they don't like the Bittorret format, so they throttle down Bittorrent packets (Not OK)
Comcast sold you X number of bytes of low latency transfer capacity and you exceeded that so now they throttle all your traffic down until you buy more capacity or somone else is paying for the priority channel (OK).
As above except instead of throttling all your traffic they only throttle video or audio streams. (Not OK)
> Why is Comcast Using Self-driving Cars To Justify Abolishing Net Neutrality?
Because using self driving cars is more humane than the way they would prefer to kill net neutrality.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
blocking what? Packets? Exactly what do you think firewalls do? Seriously, this kind of rule sound fantastic, until some Asshole ruins it for everyone.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
For an internet provider they are pretty unclear of how IP protocols work.
a) there is no such thing as instantaneous
b) there is no such thing as error free transmission.
c) any given packet can take a different route
d) packets can arrive out of order
e) packets can be dropped
If they want guaranteed bandwidth they are using the wrong network.
Would you like a unicorn with that? How about a flying car?
Because they are full of shit, as always.
This isn't that unexpected when they're paying the legal team to creates as many pages of documents as possible arguing their side (pro paid prioritization of traffic).
I mean, this is all about theoretical implementations. MAYBE there would be a reason for cars to do some communications over wireless Internet services alongside of the allocated frequencies dedicated for the task? 99.9% sure not, but it COULD happen.
I think you can create fictional scenarios all day long where someone COULD find it useful to pay extra money for prioritized data traffic. The real issue, though, is that the concept of broadband Internet is about paying X amount for a certain transfer speed; not paying different rates based on what you're trying to do over a given connection. You would never think it was logical to pay your electric power company different rates based on which devices used the electricity that was consumed. You wouldn't expect your water company to break out your water usage by how many gallons were used by your dishwasher, vs. your toilets vs your shower, and then offer you better water pressure for your shower if you paid a premium.
Why is Comcast Using Self-driving Cars To Justify Abolishing Net Neutrality?
Because they think it'll work.
Does there need to be another reason?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
networks that need near lossless transmission already have a premium cost. This is a real thing and has been for a couple decades. Whether it be from a HQ to a regional office or a hedge fund to a wall street broker. Dedicated P2P is a premium and no is suggesting it shouldn't be.
Their using the MVNO regulations to provide cell phone service. If last mile or virtual ISP rules were created, they'd have to open their own network to let other business provide services.
Assuming that a data connection that can provide safety information in real time is required to keep a vehicle from crashing is just moronic.
And then you act like a moron by assuming that such a data channel will always be available.
Reducing risks is a valid reason to have a high priority data channel
And then you contradict the need for such a data channel
It doesn't mean that every car will crash when that data isn't available.
Autonomous cars don't need data channels of any sort. They're autonomous. Comcast is just doing the same FUD as always. Anything else, such as reporting an accident, can use the regular cell network, same as is done today.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
When a "bad hombre" is in the car a three letter agency needs to be able to communicate with the car with full reliability. How else can they tell the car to drive off a cliff or stop on railroad tracks in front of the oncoming train. Drones are so last year...
Likewise, for autonomous vehicles that may require instantaneous data transmission,
Okay, if their cars can violate the laws of physics, I think they might deserve special treatment.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Why does an autonomous vehicle need any sort of real-time connection? It doesn't, any more than one with a driver does. Additional requirements are just additional points of failure / attack. Haven't we learned ANYTHING yet? You can already buy wireless devices that let you unlock someone else's door, steering, and start the car for under $200.00.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I thought net neutrality was about treating all traffic of the same type the same.
Autonomous cars comunicate amogst themselves via unlicensed spectrum, yes, but they comunicate with the backend cloud where many important services are provided via the usual internet.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. TCP/IP(v4&v6) have all the provisions for Diferentiated trafic and QoS. Many a career has been built developing such mechanisims.
the problem is not wether some trafic has to be prioritized. If autonomous vehicle trafic needs more priority than VoD, which in turn needs more Priority than email and S/FTP, that is fine and dandy.
The problem starts when the trafic from autonomous vehicles from Ford/GM have better priority than the Autonomous vehicles from Toyota and VolksWagen, which in turn have better priority than Autonomous behicles from tesla. Or when VoD trafic from, say comcast, has better priority than VoD trafic from Netflix and Hulu...
You see, net neutrality is not about not about having the same priority for all trafic, but about having different priorities for different types of trafic, but making sure that the same types of trafic get exactly the same priorities no matter whom originates or receives it.
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
Ok, so, what you're saying is that we're on the same page and you completely missed the point of my initial comment when you replied to it.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Spoiler: The technology really isn't ready regardless. Keep your drivers license in order, you'll need it for a good long time to come.
none of this is news... that is the whole point, idiot. the question itself being asked is the answer to the question.
I think you're missing my point.
Allowing end points to set their own QoS is just as bad as letting the ISPs do it. We need an intermediate authority which sets the QoS for end users but who doesn't stand any chance for profit from prioritizing one data stream provider over another.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I think you're misunderstanding me. I read your comment as implying that blocking traffic on end user networks violates net neutrality. This is false.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
We have net neutrality now. You don't understand what it is, but the legislature is designed to keep it has it has been. The people against it want to change the rules to game the system so that rich people get to richer and the poor are SOL.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
And then you act like a moron by assuming that such a data channel will always be available.
I made no such assumption.
And then you contradict the need for such a data channel
What you quoted contradicted nothing.
Autonomous cars don't need data channels of any sort.
Right. There will never be any information that will allow risk reduction or mitigation based on external data that an autonomous vehicle could make use of. Says you.
They're autonomous.
That word does not mean what you think it means. Hint: autonomous does not mean "operates in a data vacuum."
Why would you make the ridiculous claims that "most use ATM", or that ATM changes TCP? ATM is a transport mechanism like ethernet, and TCP works the same over it. Are you just trying to sound smart? If so, EPIC FAIL.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
QoS is a suggestion, not a directive, so ignoring it is within spec.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Why does an autonomous vehicle need any sort of real-time connection?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe for safety and traffic and other kinds of data it can use to mitigate or avoid risks. It's not hard to think of stuff it could use to make its operation safer.
It doesn't, any more than one with a driver does.
I made a five and a half hour car trip a couple of weeks ago. It would have been four hours long except I didn't have the real-time data that told me that the road I was taking was completely blocked by a crash a half hour earlier. I had to find an alternate route that took much longer. Had I gotten the real-time data about the crash I could have gone a different alternate that wouldn't have cost an hour and a half.
Additional requirements are just additional points of failure / attack.
You have this odd notion that when a data source that provides safety and guidance data to an autonomous vehicle goes away it means that the vehicle immediately crashes. Yes, a wireless data stream will be a point of attack. Just like tires are a point of attack.
Haven't we learned ANYTHING yet?
An ironic question.
No, I got your point; you still seem to be missing mine, though.
If your traffic is only measured against your other traffic, your QoS headers have no effect on anyone else's traffic. Follow?
It's a simple implementation, actually; your ISP already splits its aggregate bandwidth into rate-limited streams (or buckets, if you prefer) based on the speed you pay for. They can just as easily apply QoS rules defined for each stream on an individual basis.
Hell, my consumer-grade router can do that. I can assign vnets a fixed amount of bandwidth and each vnet can have its own QoS rules; one vnet having rules that set every packet to high priority doesn't affect the other vnets (of course, it also doesn't benefit that vnet, either).
In other words, your QoS rules decide which of your packets get dropped or delayed if one or more of your packets need to be dropped or delayed; they don't, in this hypothetical (and easy to implement) scenario, determine whether your packets or someone else's get dropped or delayed. That latter determination would need to be made by the ISP's own traffic management system and a fair way to determine that is to determine what percentage of the aggregate bandwidth belongs to each user (e.g. we've sold 100Tb/sec and you pat for 100Mb/sec, you "own" 0.0001% of available bandwidth) and ensure that each user gets that percentage of whatever aggregate bandwidth is actually available during times of congestion.
Then, you can set all of your QoS rules to high priority all day long and your rules don't affect me in the slightest.
To put it another way, call me when you've implemented this and know what you're actually talking about. I have and I do or I wouldn't be repeating it.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Can you do whatever you want on your networks, but want Comcast limited to what it can do on its networks that it owns? You want the ability to control other peoples networks, please expect them to want to control yours.
Or would you accept Comcast saying "network congestion" as an excuse why your VOIP service doesn't work because your neighbor down the street is running several Torrents of porn out of his mom's basement? Because after all "Net Neutrality" says that every packet on Comcast Network is the same. No QOS allowed because that is a violation of Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality is a good idea. However draconian rules and a million micro regulations designed for exceptions because it was short sighted and didn't account for assholes of the world aren't the solution it is going to be .
Seriously, the FIX for this is fixing where the problem actually resides, at the last mile. Fix last mile micro monopolies and you'll solve all Net Neutrality problems in such a way that everyone gets exactly what they want.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Holy shit, you are so ignorant that it is painful to read your post.
Net neutrality applies to hosting and transit providers. They must provide equal access to all authorized traffic, similar to public roads.
Endpoint filtering---your firewall and anti-spam applications---are not relevant to net neutrality at all.
I'm not going to buy a car that requires a low latency internet connection to function correctly.
That's just fucking stupid.
Use your heads. Comcast wants it because Comcast's globalist stockholders want it, and the stockholders want it because it gives the federal government new censorship power. Doesn't everyone already know how evil and anachronistic Comcast is? There's no natural synergy between self-driving cars and net neutrality, it's just bullshit.
Wrong - contrary to the title you gave it, as I pointed out, it is not because of posts on the internet. Try to keep up.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Reducing risks is a valid reason to have a high priority data channel
You're making the case for an unneeded high priority data channel right there,
Also, autonomous means self-directed. Able to act on its own. I never said it meant "operate in a data vacuum." Autonomous vehicles collect tons of data through their own sensors, allowing them to be autonomous. Anything less is not autonomous.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I understand that. My point being; there is little difference between shaping to the edge of your network or to the next hop; the edge of the ISP's network ( bufferbloat aside ). We could realize real gains by accurate and appropriate QoS flowing from end point on a client's network all the way to the server on the remote network, without dropping ( too many ) packets, and certainly nothing noticeable. At the very least, it would allow ISPs to more fully utilize their infrastructure which, in my dreamland, would result in cost savings being passed on to the consumer.
If QoS were used correctly and appropriately. Which of course, we can't trust ISPs to do. Nor can we trust the ISPs to do either.
Mind you; I'm not advocating for or against net neutrality here. Due to the trust issues I lean towards being pro-neutrality, but it bothers my net admin bone in that it wastes capability.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
So you are just speculating about a possible future scenario based on your cynical view that all government regulation must be bad. Got it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I am not a damn ISP routing traffic for all and sundry, so net neutrality laws don't apply to me. Saying "Maybe in the future something bad will happen as a consequence" is not a good argument against trying to regulate bad behavior that actually exists now. Nobody has EVER been saying that you can't block or shape traffic on your own network, and no amount of fear mongering on your part will change that.
You just basically start from the premise that anything that we, the people choose to do through our government will always turn out bad. Then you argue backwards from your desired conclusion to reach a set of statements that support it. That's called self justification, not an argument.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Archangel Micheal believes that anything the government does is automatically bad, and if it is some sort of "regulation" then it is even worse. Net Neutrality is a government regulation, therefore, in Micheal's world, it has to be bad. There is no other alternative, governments simply can not do good, ever.
Ok, so we're still semi on the same page, and you've given me a slightly different perspective which may well lead to a theoretical solution (which will never be implemented, even if it could work, because money). I have an appointment to get to, so I don't have time to put the concept into words right now; I'll reply to your post again when I find the time.
Who knows, maybe my idea will be workable and maybe, by en even smaller margin, it might get implemented.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
No, "QoS" is about prioritizing traffic. Period. Doesn't matter whether you applied the tags based on the type of service, or on the identity of the sender or the receiver, or for any other reason you felt like it.
That's the point of net neutrality -- it's an attempt to keep ISPs from abusing QoS controls. Net neutrality does not prevent legitimate uses of QoS controls.
Not so much, they probably need a couple hundred feet in open space. Open protocols for open frequencies should be BETTER than finding cell towers and going round trip.
First off I don't expect vehicles marketed as "autonomous" to actually be. Because I'm not naive.
Secondly, there's a fair chance there will be a basic on-board program that works right/safely, but not optimally, and a more CPU intensive one using cloud resources that takes over when there is a connection.
Someone had to do it.
That's the point of net neutrality
I keep hearing that, but never seeing an actual policy document that says how. Other than vague plans completely cripple the use of QoS.
Someone had to do it.
Where it goes off the rails is that every single person involved knows that the carriers can't be trusted to appropriately prioritize traffic
In short, network engineers can be trusted with QoS flags because they care about optimizing the network, where suits cannot because they care about optimizing profits.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Any politician who agrees with this should have a pacemaker implanted that depends on instantaneous communication with a remote server through a Comcast connection.
There is a whole new generation of Slashdot users who don't know what the fuck they are doing.
As opposed to the older generation of Slashdot users who know what the fuck they are doing, but are too senile to remember it.
I'm part of the middle group who are just plain stoopid. Huzzah!
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Even when they need a 200'ish page ball of mud to veil it from genpop, and an under the table paycheck to whoever is in charge.
Even internet trolls are better than telecom operators these days, ethically and moral-wise. What has the world come to. At least in the last century, all a company needed to make a buck was some dodgy catchy marketing, and a stupid enough target consumer group. Now they will attack core rights indiscriminately for that investor relations briefing. Innovation and capitalism cannot be senselessly name-dropped at will, and it's time someone sets the guidelines for such a problem in developed societies such as he US, before full-fledged leftism comes back with a vengeance.
My car's nav system is already autonomous, aside from infrequent map updates. All it needs is a clear view of some GPS satellites. Dodging pedestrians and detecting the edge of the road should not require a real time connection.
Have gnu, will travel.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Explain exactly how a self driving will use an internet connection.
All the data an autonomous vehicle requires is strictly local. Using the internet to facilitate inter-vehicle communication because (you think) it's cheaper is insane.
Often-overlooked fact about QoS:
"Dropping" and "delaying" are two different things. We shouldn't treat them as synonymous.
E.g. in a VoIP stream, there's no point in delaying a packet - if you can't pass it on immediately, you should just drop it, because a packet delivered with significant delay is worse than not delivering it at all. Conversely, in a TCP stream, it's better to delay for a few milliseconds than to drop.
First off I don't expect vehicles marketed as "autonomous" to actually be. Because I'm not naive.
Then you're being incredibly naive. It's going to happen because $$$. Long distance trucking is going to be the first to use it because there's no more mandatory downtime during a long distance run or after x number of hours so the driver can rest, so you get more miles covered every day, which means more revenue. No wages for drivers. No mandatory deductions for worker's comp, health care, etc. No more worrying about lawsuits for gender bias. No more calling in sick.
A 2018 Kenworth T580 is over $150,000. If you can sell fleets of autonomous trucks that can do twice as many hours a week, you can justify a $300,000 price tag. Fleet sales are going to generate lots of revenue.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Uhm, do you even know what ATM is? It implements OSI levels up to 3 -- we don't really care about levels 1 and 2 as that's a hidden implementation detail, but what matters is that level 3 is routed. An ATM circuit goes at least from one edge of the ISP to another. IP packets are split and encapsulated inside, this means the user's bogus QoS fields are completely ignored and handled like any other payload. ATM has its own QoS that the customer can't put their grubby mitts on: among others, it prevents bursts in other traffic interrupting low-bandwidth high-priority connections that are handled specially.
Many newer networks use IP-in-IP instead, but the concept is the same.
And the ISP doesn't even care if you use TCP, UDP, ICMP or any of many odd protocols at that level. They may look at packet type to prioritize certain kinds of traffic, but that's no different from looking at TCP port as well. It's just a payload.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
It is you that don't understand Asynchronous Transfer Mode. In essence packets get encapsulated upon entry and then back again on the other end. It is no different than how a backbone performs the same function. Packets are not going to go slower or more quickly for that leg, but it is a very high speed leg. QoS info remains in tact, and continues to be useful where needed. QoS isn't used in the backbone. Good luck learning about networking!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
You're making the case for an unneeded high priority data channel right there,
Au contraire what? This neither assumes that such a "channel" will always exist nor does it contradict the claim that such a channel can be useful. In fact, it does just the opposite. Risk management is a very good reason to have a data channel available. "A good reason to have" is not the same as "must always be available". If that channel can be made more useful by making it a higher priority than a 5Mb image of the grandkids in an email, then that's a Good Thing to do. And, unlike your chicken little assumption, "a good reason to have" does not mean "will immediately crash if it isn't available."
Also, autonomous means self-directed. Able to act on its own.
Able to make its own decisions. It does NOT mean "make decisions in a data vacuum".
I never said it meant "operate in a data vacuum."
When you say it can operate without external data, that is exactly what you mean. You said, quote, "Autonomous cars don't need data channels of any sort. They're autonomous." That's a data vacuum, and it is a patently absurd claim to make. That's also a clear admission that you really don't know what "autonomous" means, since "don't need data" is not part of that definition. Every AV needs data to make decisions, and the better the data it can get the better decisions it will make. Like the example I already gave, where an AV that can get real-time data about a road closure could have chosen a different main route to conduct that four hour trip instead of getting to the crash site, deciding it can't get through, and then reverting to the back roads and taking an extra hour and a half.
Explain exactly how a self driving will use an internet connection.
Explain how you don't understand the word "innovation", or explain how you know today every data source that an AV might make use of next year or in five years.
But, of course, one example that has already been talked about is getting Waze real-time traffic info. That's just one example. Will you be happy when your self-driving car pulls up to the ass end of a traffic jam with you stuck inside, that it could have avoided had it had access to traffic data already available on the internet? Would you not joining the parking lot and sitting idle for an hour be a reasonable use of an internet connection in your opinion?
so that the communication between the car and the 'other end' has low latency. Not the communication between the 'other end' and whatever network it's connected to.
If you don't understand the internet then just please say so. If a vehicle is making an internet connection to something AT THE OTHER END (and there is always "the other end") and the other end is not getting the packets from the vehicle in a timely manner, then it cannot RESPOND in a timely manner. A "paid fastlane" isn't just for the "vehicle end" of the data, it applies to the full path from vehicle to ANYWHERE.
Unfortunately, as part of their argument Comcast has stated that the paid fast lanes "might be fair to sell to automakers for use in autonomous vehicles" -- which is the part of the communication path between the car and whatever device is on the immediate other end of the wireless connection the car makes, not any communication between a roadside device and deeper into the internet. Any non-vehicle device that the car connects with isn't going to be the purview of the auto manufacturers to arrange bandwidth for, so Comcast is talking about needing to be allowed to sell 'paid fast lanes' to auto manufacturers, who won't be making use of them, because the communication devices in the cars won't be communicating on Comcast's -- or any other ISP's -- wireless bandwidth.
If an autonomous car driving through a city makes a connection to a roadside device that then connects through the internet to another host, the bandwidth from that device to the host is under the control of the city, and Comcast selling "paid fast lanes" to the auto manufacturers isn't going to affect that connection; their statement is a misdirection and irrelevant to the issue.
It is not patently absurd. It is accurate. The vehicle must be able to drive safely without external data, or it is not autonomous. The fact that it can do a better job of getting you there in a timely manner doesn't mean that it needs a high-priority channel.
More significantly, in most major cities, traffic data is broadcast on sidebands of various radio stations, and can be received by any device for which the user has paid the fairly cheap lifetime subscription fee. Because traffic data is available from permanent RADAR stations along the highway, the receipt of that information can be strictly one-directional, and is thus well suited to a broadcast system. This is not to say that you can't do it over the Internet, just that it isn't strictly necessary to do so. Thus, making a high-priority bidirectional channel available for getting information that can be just as easily obtained by adding a $25 traffic data receiver would be patently absurd.
And even if you want to go full-on-Waze-style, with real-time data gathering to pinpoint slow spots and try to route people around on side streets (which may or may not actually reduce your drive time, depending on lots of other factors that are hard to predict, such as traffic light timing), there's no reason to believe that self-driving cars would benefit from that data arriving faster, with lower latency, because overall traffic patterns don't change enough from one second to the next for latency to matter anyway—even if it the latency is on the order of tens of seconds, much less when it is on the order of single-digit seconds.
Traffic mapping is simply not a real-time task and never will be. Nothing associated with self-driving cars benefits from real-time performance except what is happening entirely inside the car—processing data from sensors—and perhaps communication with nearby cars in some situations (which must necessarily be direct, not just because of latency, but also because of the high complexity of figuring out what cars are near you on the server side and routing data appropriately, and also because of the high probability that your cars will get their data from different companies whose data centers are on opposite sides of the country from each other).
No, the sorts of tasks that benefit from prioritization are things like live audio and video streaming. And these things are readily identifiable by port numbers, QoS flags, etc. without any need to use paid prioritization to give higher priority for traffic to/from a single company. Remember, this is not about prioritization, but rather paid prioritization, whose sole purpose, by its very definition, is to give an advantage to traffic from specific companies that pay over others that don't.
That last bit is what Comcast is trying to make people forget. Paid prioritization is, by definition, anti-competitive.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
You keep using the word "real-time". I do not think it means what you think it does.
Real-time refers to something in which microseconds matter, not milliseconds, not seconds, not minutes, not hours. Your traffic data getting there ten seconds later won't affect you at all unless you just happen to be right before the last exit before the wreck when it first gets detected, in which case the additional data would pose at least as high a risk of you causing an accident trying to cut over at the last minute as it would of getting you to avoid the accident.
Besides, the first cars that come upon an accident usually don't have to slow down much anyway. It's the cars that are minutes away that need to start taking actions to avoid the accident. Delays of milliseconds don't matter in traffic data. Delays of minutes usually don't matter, at least in the aggregate. So traffic data is not an example of something that requires real-time communication by any stretch of the imagination. It requires, at most, a background-notification-caliber polling model, if that. Most navigation systems just use a radio receiver and get broadcasts from the transit agencies based on fixed RADAR stations. And that's good enough granularity to get the job done.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
No, a paid fast lane is a fast path from the vehicle to the Internet backbone. From there, it would get the same priority as any other traffic.
Also, a paid fast lane is a fast path from vehicles of a specific company to the Internet backbone. Nothing in net neutrality laws would prevent companies from building a fast path from all vehicles to the backbone, if it were necessary for some specific critical purpose. The laws just say that A. the ISPs can't charge the car companies for giving priority to cars, and B. the ISPs can't give priority to traffic from Ford over traffic from Chevy in exchange for money. All traffic of a given type (e.g. vehicle navigation data, if you want to use that rather silly, highly latency-tolerant example) must get the same priority.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Several orders of magnitude better. For a server-based approach to work, you'd have, in the best case (read "not periodic HTTP polling"), tens of milliseconds to deliver the data to the server, tens of milliseconds to deliver the data back, plus hundreds of milliseconds (or more) for the server to look through all the cars in a list of geographically nearby vehicles to see if they're close enough to warrant sending the data to them. It would likely take only single-digit milliseconds for direct car-to-car communication. Even if it had to be relayed through multiple cars, it would still be an order of magnitude faster.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The vehicle must be able to drive safely without external data, or it is not autonomous.
That is so stupid that I know you must be trolling at this point. Autonomous does NOT mean "without external data". It means that it makes decisions about how to respond BASED ON EXTERNAL DATA instead of the human making those decisions.
The fact that it can do a better job of getting you there in a timely manner doesn't mean that it needs a high-priority channel.
It isn't a fact that it can do a better job, and I didn't say it NEEDS a high priority channel. Do you not understand what "is useful" means?
Thus, making a high-priority bidirectional channel available for getting information that can be just as easily obtained by adding a $25 traffic data receiver would be patently absurd.
Do you not understand what "example" means? As in, real-time traffic data is just one example what kinds of data would be useful? Wait, you think "useful" means "mandatory", so no, I don't doubt that "example" is also beyond you.
No, the sorts of tasks that benefit from prioritization are things like live audio and video streaming.
Those are two examples of data that humans use that would benefit from prioritization, but thinking that's the only data possible is basing a long-term decision on static thinking. We don't know all the kinds of data that AV might make use of because, first of all, YOU are adamant that the AV cannot use it (because if it did it wouldn't be autonomous) and second because they aren't common on the highways yet and we don't know what might be important.
And these things are readily identifiable by port numbers,
If you don't understand how the internet works, just say so. You don't need to demonstrate an ignorance of the ability to use any port number for any service to make that clear. Maybe you've never run an SSH server on a port other than 22, or FTP on anything other than 21, or a web server on anything other than 80, or UUCP on anything other than 540, but some of us do that kind of thing and we know how trivially easy it is.
QoS flags,
Ditto. Who sets the flags? The sender.
Remember, this is not about prioritization, but rather paid prioritization,
For a specific source, remember. Net neutrality, in the minds of the zealots, means NO differentiation, not that it is ok to slow their email or web browsing down because someone else has a video (or data that an AV can make good use of to mitigate risks) that needs higher priority. And YOU don't even admit that there CAN be data that an AV can use to mitigate risks because you claim they don't need ANY external data. And yet you'll explain how the AV will get external data via "broadcast" and "RADAR" and "sidebands".
I get it that you hate Comcast. I also get it that you don't understand what "autonomous" means. Really, I do. Until you do suss out the real meaning, there's nothing more to say. If you ever do manage to cut off the external data that your new AV uses to keep you safer, please don't use the public highways. Or please do try suing the car manufacturer for false advertising when you learn that your "autonomous" vehicle actually uses external data to make driving decisions, because, according to you, it ain't autonomous if it uses external data of any kind.
Real-time refers to something in which microseconds matter,
"Real-time" has many meanings when used by humans. It doesn't always means "microseconds."
Besides, the first cars that come upon an accident usually don't have to slow down much anyway.
When a crash blocks the highway they better slow down ALOT and RIGHT NOW or else they're going to join the fun of an ambulance ride, or watching their cars get towed away. By law, the first cars are supposed to stop to provide assistance.
Most navigation systems just use a radio receiver and get broadcasts from the transit agencies based on fixed RADAR stations.
There were so many radar stations along that section of highway the candy bar in my pocket was just molten goo, for sure.
Too bad the real-world latency for LTE,
Yes, today's LTE has that limitation...
But tomorrows cellular/wifi tech???????
THINK AHEAD PLEASE.
Realistically, self-driving cars can't assume data will be more current than O(minutes), and must be able to tolerate data that is O(hours) old
Yes, AND?????????
I mean can no one but me understand that the more instant the delivery of broadcast communication is of road issues the better? Can no-one understand the incredible importance of redundancy? Can no-one see this clearly? Now I understand how all geniuses of the past must have felt when trying to explain what seemed like a simple and obvious idea but they were hounded out of the village of whatever for witchcraft. Only it's not like my since thought here, that the faster the distribution of current road information the better, is in any way anything but the simplest and most obvious of common sense.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Also, a paid fast lane is a fast path from vehicles of a specific company to the Internet backbone.
It is a fast lane for a company, on the internet, for data relevant to AVs. Every connection from an AV to the internet goes someplace. "Vehicle to anywhere" has an anywhere to connect to. That "anywhere" is on the internet. Why is this so hard?
Nothing in net neutrality laws would prevent companies from building a fast path from all vehicles to the backbone,
If only the only important thing was getting to the backbone, and not to the data source or sink at the other end of the internet connection. If so, why do people complain so bitterly about congestion at border gateways? They've got their 50Mbps connection to the "backbone", what else is important? Oh, you mean actually getting data over that backbone, all the way from the source to the destination, is an issue?
The laws just say that A. the ISPs can't charge the car companies for giving priority to cars,
It also says that company B, that provides data used by AVs, cannot pay more to get their data prioritized to the AVs. That's the part you keep missing. Data from company B going to ALL and ANY AV is one company getting priority over others.
All traffic of a given type (e.g. vehicle navigation data, if you want to use that rather silly, highly latency-tolerant example) must get the same priority.
Yes, which will be the same as the data from Netflix or Google or .... Perhaps you can define how you know what this data (and only you are limiting it to "vehicle navigation data") is and that it is bound for an AV and not another system. Will AVs get allocated a specific address block? Oh, wait, that would be prioritization based on source or destination -- clearly not net neutral.
The fact is, this is new stuff. We don't have a history of AVs cluttering the highways yet. Those AVs that are out there are few, far between, and in many cases populated by engineers supervising the autonomous behavior. We don't know what kinds of data might be critical to have, yet. That's why we want to allow innovation. Saying "your data isn't more important than pix of Aunt Milly at the crocheting competition" is absurd.
"Yes, your honor, we did build an autonomous vehicle that worked flawlessly and safely, but we decided to switch over to using the internet because we could. What do you mean that makes me guilty of vehicular manslaughter in the 30 deaths from our vehicles failing while cloud connected?"
Seriously, we're already at the point that people are seeing that "cloud" means "internet" and "internet" means "relying upon the worst of mankind to not decide to crash a bunch of cars". Any "autonomous" car that doesn't behave autonomously all the time--short of direct driver override--is a criminal liability nightmare.
If a vehicle cannot make reasonable decisions without external data, then that means it cannot safely drive unless another vehicle has recently driven the road to provide that data. Such a vehicle might pedantically be described as autonomous, but it is not usefully so.
Getting traffic data slightly sooner is not, in practice, useful, as I already pointed out. And all data that a car could usefully take advantage of falls into one of two categories: things that are happening nearby and that must be reported immediately and things that are not happening nearby and that can wait a long time. The former should absolutely never be sent via cellular data, because A. determining what vehicles are nearby cannot realistically be done over a cellular network reliably enough and quickly enough to not be a huge burden on the network for no good reason, B. even in the best case, it would be way too slow to be practical, and C. such an approach would not work at all if you were outside cellular territory, which means you would necessarily want to provide a local radio fallback anyway, thus making the cellular path only practically useful for the latter—for data that is non-urgent. This will always be the case, necessarily, because the laws of physics don't change.
We have autonomous vehicles out there on the roads today, and exactly none of them benefit from prioritization, much less paid prioritization. They barely even use the cellular network. If all those engineers from multiple different companies all have concluded that there's no need for a fast data lane for autonomous vehicles, then it's pretty safe to say that there isn't.
And besides, that is still completely irrelevant, because no data benefits from paid prioritization, which is not about prioritizing based on the type of data at all, but rather based on what company's servers are on the other end. The only "benefit" that can ever come from paid prioritization, by definition, is one company getting priority for their traffic over that of another company's traffic of a similar kind, e.g. Ford getting traffic data to their cars faster than Chevy. There cannot possibly be a benefit to consumers from that, period.
No, this is not what net neutrality means. That's a straw man put forward by minions of major ISPs to give them something to attack. It is almost universally agreed upon by everyone that basic QoS should be allowed under net neutrality—that traffic requiring low jitter/latency should get slight temporal priority over traffic that does not, within reason.
And QoS is explicitly exempt from the paid prioritization ban that Comcast is claiming will someh
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
By any meaningful definition, traffic data is not real-time. It is not a continuous stream of data from radar stations directly to you. Traffic data is only periodically updated, and is delayed significantly as it propagates from system to system and is accumulated, averaged over time, etc., so the traffic data you're seeing is likely minutes old. A single car obtaining traffic data in anything approaching real time would likely bring the cellular network utterly to its knees, much less millions of them. And more importantly, high-speed delivery doesn't usually matter, because the average speed of traffic on a section of road doesn't change very quickly (even when there's an accident, typically, unless a semi flips and blocks all lanes). It takes minutes for a wreck to bring a multi-lane road to a standstill.
No kidding. This is why autonomous vehicles have cameras, LIDAR, and orders of magnitude faster response time than any human. That doesn't require fast cellular networking. It doesn't even benefit from it.
In what country? At least in the United States, as a rule, you are not required to stop for an accident, though I suppose there might be some state that requires doctors/nurses/medical professionals to do so, possibly as part of medical licensure laws. In some states, you're required to render aid if you do stop, but nothing requires you to stop.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
It is a fast lane for a specific company, on the Internet, for data relevant to AVs. It's that boldfaced part that you seem to be deliberately ignoring here.
It's not the only important thing. And that's why paid prioritization is useless except as a workaround for a specific ISP providing inadequate throughput to the backbone. The ISP can't guarantee faster throughput to the destination. All it can do is guarantee faster throughput to the backbone for traffic being sent towards a particular destination, which is what paid prioritization is all about.
Yes, and that shouldn't be allowed. What should be allowed is for company B to ask the ISPs to prioritize traffic from all companies to autonomous vehicles without charging money to the autonomous vehicle company.
The usual approach would be for the prioritization to be based on the fact that it is coming from an autonomous vehicle. Prioritization based on source is not and has never been a net neutrality issue. If it were, it would be illegal to charge higher fees for faster Internet service. That's prioritization based on source. Net neutrality just bans ISPs from charging money to companies that are not their customers for better access to their customers.
Thus, the entire concept of paid prioritization would likely be inherently nonsensical in the context of autonomous cars, because the car company would almost certainly pay for permanent network access for their cars as they do now (and thus would be that ISP's customer) and thus would have the right to pay for whatever class or speed of service suited those vehicles.
But even supposing that the individual customers paid for service, there would still be nothing preventing the car companies from creating innovative features that require fast connections, because the customers would have the option of choosing whether or not to pay for that faster class of service to enable such innovative features.
Either way, it would not require paid prioritization, according to the legal (FCC) definition thereof.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
FYI, a sizable percentage of VoIP-like traffic is over TCP these days, because UDP is too unreliable and suffers too badly from fragmentation, so being able to drop VoIP packets willy-nilly isn't really a safe assumption anymore.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
You have been tricked into arguing nothing. That something, anything requires quick response times is how much bloody data, how much bandwidth. Good QoS should let low priority low data traffic through because it clears back log and even hold back high priority stuff because of the amount of data being sent. Then how continuous the data flow needs to be. Urgent signal send to autonomous vehicle is going to be pretty small. Net neutrality is exactly that treating all traffic neutrally, no measures placed upon source or destination, just on nature of traffic. They want to kill competitors, straight up and be able to sell that, you pay more and your competitors will go slower, not because the network needs that capacity but to destroy them. Than there is listening in, censorship, altering data transmission a whole range of corrupt stuff blocked by net neutrality laws.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
No, "QoS" is about prioritizing traffic. Period.
You could just open with "I don't understand QoS". It would save everyone reading the rest of your comment.
Because doing it that way would be incredibly stupid. It makes as much sense as transferring a file from your bedroom PC to the one in the lounge by uploading it to dropbox.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Any "autonomous" car that doesn't behave autonomously all the time--short of direct driver override--is a criminal liability nightmare.
You have a reading comprehension problem. Read what the hell I wrote, please. I didn't say the car would not operate safely without a connection, just that it would operate more optimally with one. There's a huge difference between safe basic service and optimal service.
Nobody expects "autonomous" to mean "never, ever, talks to anything" and there will be no legal challenge to a product that contains a cloud component as long as it seamlessly handles cloud service outages in a safe manner. The consumer public will expect from "autonomous" is that no driver is needed. That's all it means to them. Neither they, nor the law, will expect it to comply to a compsci term of art. It simply will not mean the product does not have a cloud component... and already doesn't, given navigation maps are updated in real time.
Someone had to do it.
The argument here is not whether there will be no driver. We all agree on that. The argument is whether all driving computations will be done on-board.
Someone had to do it.
QoS is only useful on local networks. It is stripped or ignored as soon as you leave the local network because it has no meaning. Sure you'd like to have your voip packets have a higher priority for low latency but the carriers don't have a good way to tell what traffic is actually tagged correctly and you can be sure there are OSes out there that are just marking everything as high priority. So it becomes a untrustable situation, carrier can't trust the consumer to tag them correctly and the consumer can't trust the carrier to tag them or honor the tag already on them.
If a vehicle cannot make reasonable decisions without external data, then that means it cannot safely drive unless another vehicle has recently driven the road to provide that data. Such a vehicle might pedantically be described as autonomous, but it is not usefully so.
Wow, you just keep proving how stupid you are. All cars driven by humans are autonomous, and don't need another vehicle to have driven the road before they do. We're talking about replacing the driver. That is perfectly doable without any internet connection whatsoever. It's also a current requirement.
The safety aspect is avoiding collisions - and even current vehicles can do a better job than humans. No high-speed internet required. Why? Because they are designed to eventually get good enough to replace the driver, and all they need are the same inputs a driver currently uses. You don't want a central computer to avoid collisions - you want the autonomous cars to exhibit "flocking" behavior - as each one dynamically reacts to the driving environment, optimal solutions automatically emerge. No more "trolley" problem.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The argument here is not whether there will be no driver. We all agree on that. The argument is whether all driving computations will be done on-board.
There is no argument - driving computations WILL be done on-board. What won't be done on-board is ordering the vehicle to go from point A to point B. That can be done by the owner via their phone. "Pick me up at such-and-such an address" s not a high-data-transfer situation. The cell network handles that just fine, same as it handles text messages to remind you to pick up milk..
The applications from the manufacturers are for autonomous vehicles, not remote-controlled vehicles, which, without local autonomy, would be more dangerous in the event of a network disruption.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I did read what you wrote. Thanks for spending the rest of your post twisting from off-loading "cpu intensive" activities to cloud service being but a lazy map update service--that could be updated once a day over a slow connection over a long period of time. Btw, yes people will expect an autonomous vehicle to continue to function safely regardless based wholly on its own decisions--it's precisely because the consumer public is so "naive" to not think in terms of "the cloud". If there's ever a hint that the car is relying upon outside sources, even if it's to blindly trust a cloud provided map, when there's a crash there will be hell to pay.
Feel free to keep spinning how the cloud can both be optional and optimal and yet not somehow a safety hazard if some sort of cpu intensive or real time. Those are clear contradictions.
It's not unreasonable for internet carriers to have the same goals.
Likewise, it's not unreasonable of me to cancel my service and move to a competitor when my ISP pulls these kind of shenanigans.
Oh, wait...
Net neutrality applies to the public internet.
My car's telemetry shouldn't be on the same network or frequency as the public internet.
This is straight up misdirection and lies from Comcast.
No, vehicles driven by a human are explicitly not autonomous. Autonomous in the context of vehicles means exactly one thing: capable of operating without a human in control. A vehicle with a human control is precisely the opposite of autonomous. You could maybe argue that the human is autonomous, but I'm pretty sure the Continental Congress declared that self-evident a couple hundred years ago. :-)
Huh? Of course it is doable without any Internet connection. In fact, that's precisely what I said in the text you quoted. A vehicle must be able to drive itself safely without external data (e.g. data obtained over the Internet, data obtained from other nearby vehicles, etc.). If it can't, then it is not a viable autonomous vehicle design.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
QoS is a suggestion, not a directive, so ignoring it is within spec.
Which is pretty stupid if you think about it. Let's add a method of flagging packets to have a priority, but, let's also make it legit for everyone to ignore it. Yeah, that sounds just brilliant.
I know. Right. It's like those faster travel lanes. We should have some mechanism that FORCES cars to go faster, even if it means people will die in an accident! The people who design these specs are much smarter than you. Don't you worry your empty little head about them.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I mean there are already prioritisation based on traffic type, thats called QoS (Quality of service) and its fine.
The problem is not prioritization, its prioritization for money.
Priorizing something for money is bad, prioritizing traffic based on it's nature isn't.
It's prioritizing the traffic for Tesla would be bad, prioritizing traffic for all Autonomous car is not.
It's still net neutral to prioritize traffic for good reasons and logic one two.
I dont think anybody here would mind if facebook was slowed ( partially, for a finite amount of time) because theres a need for autonomous cars (regardless of maker) being prioritized for life saving reasons.
Nonsense.
Network neutrality doesn't mean they can't deliver VOIP with low latency or anything of the sort. It just means that they can't deliver VOIP from company A with better latency than that from company B (presumably because A paid their extortion demand).
It especially means they can't deliver their own VOIP service with better latency than a 3rd party's VOIP.
But yes, it would be best if they would just honor flags set on the packet. Especially now that a lot of traffic is encrypted and they can't tell what it might be.
So, once Comcast gets control of your real-time in progress telemetry data they will have a completely new way to *break* more than your kneecaps? Thinking of skipping that monthly Comcast bill just to pay for something else like food or a roof over your head? Somehow this does not sound like a good thing (tm).
If a vehicle cannot make reasonable decisions without external data,
Straw man.
None of the data you're describing has anything to do with mitigating risks.
Of course it does. Knowing that there is a accident ahead allows for planning on how to get past it, instead of waiting to come upon it and having to make a quick decision. Planning that can include using a different main road without incurring a huge time penalty, instead of using a back road that still costs an hour and a half extra.
An autonomous vehicle must be able to be completely blinded to all data external to the vehicle and still be able to drive safely.
You must have some amazingly limited definition of "external data" to make that kind of statement. Almost as if you define "external data" to mean "any data the car doesn't need to make some decision, whether it is the safest course of action or not."
Any autonomous vehicle that can't do so simply should not be allowed on the roads,
I agree. That pretty much gets rid of all of them.
We have autonomous vehicles out there on the roads today, and exactly none of them benefit from prioritization, much less paid prioritization.
As I already pointed out, not many of them, and most of those are supervised by an engineer or two. But you are so firmly entrenched in what is being done today that you cannot imagine anything new that might come along when the numbers of AV increase. If it is good enough for today, it is good enough for always, right? Do you still ride a horse to school, both ways, uphill, in the snow?
And again, paid prioritization of traffic from one company's vehicles over another company's vehicles can never be beneficial, period.
It's the company providing the data, not the company manufacturing the car.
Wow, you just keep proving how stupid you are. All cars driven by humans are autonomous, and don't need another vehicle to have driven the road before they do.
The irony of your posts is delicious. Now you seem to think that "autonomous" means "doesn't need another vehicle to have driven the road before". And you call someone else a moron.
That is perfectly doable without any internet connection whatsoever.
Perfectly? Really? There is no data from the internet that could be used to improve any decision an AV makes. Nothing could ever be developed that could improve things. Ever.
The safety aspect is avoiding collisions
Since you think that is the only aspect to safety, there is no common ground to discuss this on.
you want the autonomous cars to exhibit "flocking" behavior - as each one dynamically reacts to the driving environment, optimal solutions automatically emerge.
Oh my God. You WANT emergent behaviors from our AV in action. You don't want predictable, safe, consistent behaviour, you seek the new and unanticipated. On the public highways. "Flocking", you call it. There is a better term.
I've seen a decent solution floated for this: bandwidth caps per tier. e.g. unlimited low-priority, 200gb medium, 20gb high per month. Clients who abuse priorities would just hit their caps faster.
Vehicles with a human operator don't need remote controls. They have everything they need, same as an individual who can take care of themselves without mobility restrictions is autonomous. There's more than one definition of autonomous, depending on context. In the case of a human operator, it also doesn't need external inputs. Get over it. Controlling cars via the internet is just repeating the dumb mistakes we've made with the IoT and home computers. The safest car will be one that has zero internet control connections.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Of course you want emergent behaviour. It's the best way to deal with the unexpected because, by definition, it's unexpected.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Real easy... the base OS determines the safe range actions. The optimized service proposes actions. If those actions do not fall within the safety parameters established by the base OS, it takes over and uses its selected path. There is no contradiction there. It's already being done to some extent with aitomatic collision avoidance... with a human driver playing the role of the cloud.
Someone had to do it.
QoS is only useful on local networks.
Oh, I know, believe me. But an ISP's "local network" is a chunk of the Internet. Also, just because that is the way it is now, doesn't mean it will stay that way... though I have to admit given the security state BGP is still in, progress is slllloooooow.
Someone had to do it.
Either way, you're arguing with someone who agrees with you....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Vehicles with a human operator don't need remote controls.
Non sequitor. Who is talking about remote controls?
In the case of a human operator, it also doesn't need external inputs. Get over it.
What human can do much of anything without external inputs? Maybe you. You seem very good at it, but the product is not very good at all.
Controlling cars via the internet
Nobody is talking about controlling cars via the internet. Where did you get that shit from?
The safest car will be one that has zero internet control connections.
Because you cannot imagine that maybe someday there will be some data that can help the car make better decisions, you spout this proof by assertion. The safest car is the one that is parked in the garage; the second safest is the one that uses all useful data to make the best decisions and does not arbitrarily ignore "external data" (which it certainly DOES need) while carrying its human cargo.
By any meaningful definition, traffic data is not real-time.
By the definition of "this is a picture of what is happening now", yes, it indeed is "real time". As opposed to "leading tonight's newscast, a crash on highway ..."
But the semantics of "real time" is moot, since we haven't gotten past the point of admitting that there might be some data that an AV could use from "external sources" that would make the operation safer. You don't think there can be; I am willing to wait for the future to determine that.
As for "radar stations", I thought my comment about the candy bar in my pocket might be a clue that "radar" is not as common as you'd like to make us think.
A single car obtaining traffic data in anything approaching real time would likely bring the cellular network utterly to its knees,
Good to know. I'll stop using the apps that show me traffic data on my phone, then, since they use the same cell network that the car getting data would destroy.
Stop fixating on the one example and use it to open your mind to other possibilities.
In what country?
I'm sorry, I just gave you something else to fixate on instead of the topic at hand. My mistake.
The argument is whether all driving computations will be done on-board.
No, the argument is whether those driving computations will use any data from "external sources". Data that might come from, gasp, the Internet.
It is a fast lane for a specific company, on the Internet, for data relevant to AVs. It's that boldfaced part that you seem to be deliberately ignoring here.
I am hardly ignoring it when I am the one who has to keep trying to get you to understand that the fast lane is NOT the car to cell tower wireless connection but from the company providing the data. On the internet. You don't really think that an AV seeking a specific kind of data is going to multicast a request instead of having a connection open to a specific host, do you?
because the car company would almost certainly pay for permanent network access for their cars as they do now (and thus would be that ISP's customer)
And Comcast's customer may very well be the source of that data.
By contrast, what you're describing requires A. timing-critical (latency-sensitive) communication to be required between an autonomous vehicle and other, relatively distant autonomous vehicles
I am requiring nothing, and certainly nothing from AV to AV.
For a server-based approach to work, you'd have, in the best case (read "not periodic HTTP polling"), tens of milliseconds to deliver the data to the server, tens of milliseconds to deliver the data back, plus hundreds of milliseconds (or more) for the server to look through all the cars in a list of geographically nearby vehicles
The internet is not magic. A connection from one AV asking a server for data does not magically tell the server about all the other AV in the area. The server doesn't have to look for other cars to tell things to; if they want the data, they'll ask for it just like the first one did.
It would likely take only single-digit milliseconds for direct car-to-car communication.
That's true, but we're not talking about car-to-car, we are talking about Vehicle to Anywhere. Anywhere is a big place -- much bigger than "the car next to me." Of course there will be data links for that. This does not mean there is no possible other external data that would be useful. And even that "car to car" data is external data that some folks are trying to claim would not be used because it would make the AV not A.
The sort of hypothetical, magical fast lane that you describe is effectively impossible, both from a business perspective and from a technical perspective. This is the sort of idea that could only be conceived of by someone who has no clue how massive the data going across Internet backbones is, and thus has no concept of how hard it would be to do any sort of prioritization of traffic on its way through those backbones. We don't limit our discussion of fast lanes to the final hop between ISPs and the backbone because we don't know any better. We limit our discussion to that because any attempt to extend a fast lane beyond that point is about as likely as bottling up unicorn farts and using them as fuel for rockets to Mars.
An autonomous vehicle seeking any data that would make sense to send via multicast will almost certainly receive it asynchronously in a broadcast fashion when the data changes, and it won't be over the Internet. It will be from satellite radio, terrestrial broadcast radio, or broadcast SMS (CB). Multicast would be utterly crazy to attempt, because it provides no real advantages over broadcast, and involves enormous technical complexity that has yet to be solved despite lots of very smart people spending about four decades trying.
That's perfectly fine. Paying for an Internet connection is not paid prioritization. Therefore, by continuing to revert to an example that doesn't involve paid prioritization, you have effectively proven that your hypothesis (that paid prioritization for self-driving cars might somehow be helpful) is unsupportable.
Okay, wise-a**. Between an autonomous vehicle and other, relatively distant autonomous vehicle, safety cone, road sensor, or other apparatus that is physically located on or near some road that is on a directed graph between the vehicle's current location and the vehicle's destination. Happy?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Which leads me to ask why you'd ever want to use said optimized service.
Yep, really selling me on the idea that said cloud service is a bad idea only likely to cause problems. Especially as in the human case, humans CAN override the automatic collision avoidance--which is the whole point. If we presume humans couldn't do anything but "make suggestions" I'm pretty sure most people would rather just not have the system at all because it invariable would still make it appear that in the event of a crash the human was somehow responsible. Feel free to replace human with cloud.
So, even I presume what you're saying even makes any useful sense, it's still very clearly a bad idea. We want autonomous vehicles that "just work". Relying upon any sort of outside human/cloud intervention of any kind, unless it's a means to "fail safe", grants too much risk and too little reward. Now, if you want to discuss something like cloud monitoring of a truck fleet and a means to fail safe a hijacked automated truck... That doesn't require anything like real time access, though--ie, QoS shouldn't be relevant since position information being even a couple seconds delayed wouldn't matter much. Even then, you wouldn't want something like that on the internet...unless you want to see a new "trend" of truck fleets being FailSafed by script kiddies.
Whatever.
Problem is that's a system which relies on trust.
That's not a problem if your QoS settings are evaluated against only your traffic. In other words, if you mark all of your packets high-priority, none of them really will be because they're all in the same priority queue. If implemented properly, the only one you can screw is yourself.
But where are the rent seeking possibilities in that?
Correct me if I am wrong, yet the autonomous car immediate 'safety system' would be using the (V2V) protocol that does not use common internet.
I believe this to be a dedicated band employing protocols similar to WiFi for more real time communication between relevant devices.
Now, for drivers to go surfing the web - that is a different application all together.
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.