New Qualcomm Auto Chipset Advances Vehicle-To-Everything Communications (zdnet.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Qualcomm Auto Chipset Advances Vehicle-To-Everything Communications (zdnet.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Friday September 1, 2017 @10:10AM from the necessary-hardware dept.

Qualcomm has introduced a new Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything (C-V2X) chipset and reference design that aims to bring automakers one step closer to deploying the communications systems necessary for fully autonomous vehicles. Ford, Audi, the PSA Group and SAIC are all endorsing the new chipset. ZDNet reports: The Qualcomm 9150 C-V2X chipset, expected to be available for commercial sampling in the second half of 2018, is based on specs from the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), a collaboration between groups of telecommunications associations. Meanwhile, Qualcomm's C-V2X reference design will feature the 9150 C-V2X chipset, an application processor running the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) V2X stack, as well as a Hardware Security Module (HSM). C-V2X technology encompasses two transmission modes: direct communications and network-based communications. It's key for both safety features and for implementing autonomous driving capabilities.

For instance, its direct communications capabilities improve a vehicle's situational awareness by detecting and exchanging information using low latency transmissions. Relying on the globally harmonized 5.9 GHz ITS band, the 9150 C-V2X chipset can relay information on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) and vehicle-to-pedestrian (V2P) scenarios without the need for a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM), cellular subscription or network assistance. On top of that, C-V2X network-based communications (designed for 4G and emerging 5G wireless networks) supports telematics, connected infotainment and a growing number of advanced informational safety use cases.

24 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

let's call the chipset by turkeydance · 2017-09-01 10:14 · Score: 2

Christine
1. Re:let's call the chipset by Aighearach · 2017-09-01 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  Herbie
2. Re:let's call the chipset by NettiWelho · 2017-09-01 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  How about "yet another tracking device"?
oh shit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-01 10:17 · Score: 0

Incoming hacked Mercedes at 4 o'clock.
Remote carjacking, anyone? by sehlat · 2017-09-01 10:17 · Score: 2

After all, if it advances vehicle-to-everything communications, it certainly has to advance everythingincludinghackers-to-vehicle communications.
1. Re:Remote carjacking, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-01 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Also 'always on' government tracking of every vehicle -- also so the carjackers can know exactly where you are and pick the best spot possible to make your vehicle stop, then make it open the door, so they can drag you out and shoot you in the head (unless you're worth enough to ransom) and not mess up the car interior (better resale value for the chop shop that way).
  
  Remember, kids: don't just disconnect those antennas, they may still be able to communicate that way, and don't short them to ground, the vehicle systems will probably detect that as a fault; always put a proper 50-ohm terminator on the end of the coax, preserving shielding integrity, so the computer just thinks there's no signal.
2. Re:Remote carjacking, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-01 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  At these frequencies, a short to ground might just end up being 50 ohms.. just saying.
3. Re:Remote carjacking, anyone? by Aighearach · 2017-09-01 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  OTOH, having a standardized chipset and API for non-network vehicle-to-vehicle communication could really help prevent hacks by preventing each company from implementing their own version with their own cost savings.
Vehicle-to-pedestrian? by JohnFen · 2017-09-01 10:22 · Score: 1

Are they envisioning a future where you have to be connected to a wireless infrastructure to walk down the street?
Man, that got dystopian really quick.
1. Re:Vehicle-to-pedestrian? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-01 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Are they envisioning a future where you have to be connected to a wireless infrastructure to walk down the street?
  It is the classic problem with futurists ... we'll have all of this awesome technology if only someone else will pay for the massive infrastructure required to make it all work.
  For all of these things, be it fancy new roads, or new types of buildings, or telecommunications, buying new cars which are compatible with this .. the world simply is NOT going to spend the money to rebuild what is there.
  This means the "fancy futurist technology" will never happen, or will only happen in places where it benefits the wealthy and nobody else sees it. Over and over this mistake gets made, because it assumes there will be massive investments by someone else to make their technology viable.
  New cities, new roadways, new buildings, new ways of doing all of these things. If your magic new technology doesn't account for the existing stuff which nobody is going to change, and if it assumes everyone is going to replace what they have now with your new hotness, then your magic new technology is just a sales glossy.
  Look at how many old cars exist in the US alone. Look at how man roads exist in the US alone. Or buildings. The reality is, the world isn't going to dash out and buy this crap. And the world certainly isn't going to pay to replace existing stuff to work with this crap.
  Companies seem to think money grows on trees when they come up with these ideas. Stuff like this is the easy "bullshit test" of whether a technology has any hopes of ever becoming real. If it is dependent on participation by everyone else to succeed, it will probably fail.
2. Re:Vehicle-to-pedestrian? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-01 11:36 · Score: 0
  
  As a bike rider I can't wait to experience the enhanced terror of cars that can't see me unless I'm carrying some sort of wireless tracking device.
  Although actually now that I think about it the road is already full of drivers so intent on their phones they wouldn't see an elephant dancing the Macarena at the lights, so maybe it won't be so different to now...
3. Re:Vehicle-to-pedestrian? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-01 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  You know how a number of municipalities got caught with lead in the water lately? The ones that weren't caught were smart enough to use lead free solder to manufacture their nano-transmitters. I recommend only drinking 25 year old scotch for the next few years, then you're going to have to switch to older vintages.
4. Re:Vehicle-to-pedestrian? by drinkypoo · 2017-09-01 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  Are they envisioning a future where you have to be connected to a wireless infrastructure to walk down the street?
  No, they're envisioning a future in which the wireless infrastructure to which you are already connected helps AVs not run you down if you walk into the street while using your phone, which already includes location-finding hardware.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Not at all necessary by Kjella · 2017-09-01 10:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

V2E communication is the absolutely least thing needed for autonomous vehicles. Identifying other vehicles, traffic lights and road signs is completely trivial compared to dealing with "everything else". Random people, animals, debris and whatnot will never wear a chip, if one car can't deal with it on its own neither can a group. The potential benefits of "near-psychic" autonomous cars moving as a pseudo-train and timing the crossing of the intersection is nice-to-have to optimize cars that are already self-driving.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
1. Re:Not at all necessary by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-01 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  It would be kinda cool to have things like speed limits automatically transmitted to your car (you could use the info to make the "too fast" part of the speedo red or something). I'm sure I'm not the only person to cop a fine because I failed to see a speed limit sign.
  But then I am wondering if you couldn't just do this stuff on your phone and have better Bluetooth integration to achieve the same end.
2. Re:Not at all necessary by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-01 13:08 · Score: 0
  
  "Hey, anyone know what that thing is up ahead? I can't make out what it is."
  "I don't know, but the last 15 vehicles that passed it reported that it didn't move. My driver steered around it and no proximity sensors triggered. I've uploaded a recording of it for datacentre analysis."
3. Re:Not at all necessary by drinkypoo · 2017-09-01 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  V2E communication is the absolutely least thing needed for autonomous vehicles. Identifying other vehicles, traffic lights and road signs is completely trivial compared to dealing with "everything else".
  Therefore, there's no reason to make it simpler, or make it work better.
  
  Random people, animals, debris and whatnot will never wear a chip, if one car can't deal with it on its own neither can a group.
  Anything the car doesn't have to spend time recognizing leaves more CPU time for recognizing things which are not in the network.
  
  The potential benefits of "near-psychic" autonomous cars moving as a pseudo-train and timing the crossing of the intersection is nice-to-have to optimize cars that are already self-driving.
  You can't trust an AV which depends on V2V or V2I, but that stuff is still useful.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Why do autonomous vehicles need significant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-01 10:46 · Score: 1

inter-vehicle bandwidth? People manage to do the same task with a single digit at around one baud.
1. Re:Why do autonomous vehicles need significant by Aighearach · 2017-09-01 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but this would actually make it possible for computers to avoid the accident. All the finger does is admit guilt.
Gargoyle Outfit by Bing+Tsher+E · 2017-09-01 10:47 · Score: 2

This sounds like the chipset to build a really robust Gargoyle Outfit.
Yeap, yeap, yeap! by intellitech · 2017-09-01 11:40 · Score: 1

This is why every car I've ever owned is from pre-2010. And I especially like the even older ones that continue to start even after gutting their internal electronics.

--
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
V2E is the *END* of autonomous vehicles. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-01 14:11 · Score: 0

A couple bad hacks and the right people dying and it is over.
There is a reason to avoid autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles. But government and mainstream society is apparently too stupid to contemplate what they are and why they are a critical failing of the system (unless of course the system is more concerned with plausible deniability of intended deaths..)
I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-02 07:37 · Score: 0

Can I use this to flip people off using Apple CarPlay or not?
Mustang mode? by trevc · 2017-09-05 02:07 · Score: 1

Does the chipset have a Mustang mode that can be enabled when leaving a C&C meet?