Can cellphones handle vehicle-to-vehicle comms better than radio networks?

It's going to be a long time before DSRC-equipped vehicles are common on our roads.

Read the whole story

 

[Null_Space]

So cloud based service + cell provider service.

So there's 2 additional points of failure in the chain (or 3 if there's multiple cell networks involved). Plus the ISP of that cloud service.


IMO, dedicated spectrum is the only thing that will pass regulatory muster and allow platooning.

 

[Null_Space]

But there's hope for those of us who still drive something old-school or for the (seemingly significant) demographic of Ars readers who don't want to drive a vehicle permanently connected to the outside world: hope that looks something like this smartphone-based dashcam app from an Israeli startup called Nexar.

Ok, so why don't people want to drive a vehicle permanently connected to the outside world? Mostly because of privacy issues? How does Nexar address that? It doesn't. Your car is in communication with their privately owned cloud, acquiring data from every user and photos of the cars around them (so it's not just opt-in).

There are issues with the V2V protocol but at least it's making an effort to deal with the privacy issues instead of simply pretending they aren't there. That's if Nexar isn't outright selling the data as a revenue stream.

The only advantage Nexar has going is that, at this moment, it has more users than V2V.

For me it is not so much having a permanent connection to the internet, it is having that connection routed to other systems on my car. It is a security issue. I see very little reason that my cars brakes, accelerator, or steering should be connected to the internet, no matter how "secure" the connection may be.

That's fair, but if Nexar is able to get the V2V requirements loosened to a technology-agnostic version, their system won't always be isolated from your car's computer.

Wait, takk825, are you pro-Nexar or anti-Nexar?

I interpreted your comment as the later, since they are internet connected, and to do anything autonomous will also have to be connected to all those systems.

802.11p isn't internet connected, is it?

 

[Null_Space]

But there's hope for those of us who still drive something old-school or for the (seemingly significant) demographic of Ars readers who don't want to drive a vehicle permanently connected to the outside world: hope that looks something like this smartphone-based dashcam app from an Israeli startup called Nexar.

Ok, so why don't people want to drive a vehicle permanently connected to the outside world? Mostly because of privacy issues? How does Nexar address that? It doesn't. Your car is in communication with their privately owned cloud, acquiring data from every user and photos of the cars around them (so it's not just opt-in).

There are issues with the V2V protocol but at least it's making an effort to deal with the privacy issues instead of simply pretending they aren't there. That's if Nexar isn't outright selling the data as a revenue stream.

The only advantage Nexar has going is that, at this moment, it has more users than V2V.

How is the Nexar app in communication with your car? Other than traveling inside it? It's not connected to an OBD2 reader so there are no hooks into the car's network at all.

It has its tendrils as deep into your car's ECUs as Waze or a standalone dashcam. Which is to say not at all.

But that's the long term proposal, is it not?

Otherwise in what way is it a substitute/replacement for v2v? How can it provide information for autonomous vehicles (as you alluded to in the comments on your other article), if it's not connected to those autonomous systems?

 

[Null_Space]

Oh, and if you lot are freaking out under the misapprehension that this could be a hacking vector for cars, wait until you read about the cybersecurity plans for V2V, which most definitely has hooks deep into the CANBus.

How is it misapprehension when you're telling is repeatedly that it _will_ be connected.

V2v is required for the sorts of advanced autonomy features in the "vision". Platooning, reduced following distances, etc.

Without those, autonomous vehicles will _add_to congestion, not reduce it.

You can do LTE V2V in under 100ms *today* with existing tech. It's not going to be a problem.

 

[Null_Space]

Absent schemes like "Cash for clunkers," the future—like the present—is going to be a mix of new and older machines sharing the roads.

Ah yes, cash for clunkers; let's advocate the socially malicious destruction of many thousands of working automobiles in order to increase new car sales and increase used car values.

And yes, just the carbon footprint math dictates that it is better for the environment to run a car into the ground (until repairs out way future use/value) than to buy a new one with higher efficiency prematurely.

There is a reason why the chain is Reduce > Reuse > Recycle.

1) Note that your source is in the UK, and the vehicles miles/year they use is approximately 2/3 of that in the US.

Meaning that the equivalent old car in the US emits massively more.

2) That calculation was purely concerned with C02, not all the other pollutants which can be orders of magnitude higher in a clunker.

 

[Null_Space]

Oh, and if you lot are freaking out under the misapprehension that this could be a hacking vector for cars, wait until you read about the cybersecurity plans for V2V, which most definitely has hooks deep into the CANBus.

How is it misapprehension when you're telling is repeatedly that it _will_ be connected.

Where did I write that the Nexar app connects to your car? I think this is pretty unambiguous:

"As the system isn't integrated with the vehicle at all—there's no OBD2 port required or anything else that could be a vector from the Internet into your car's hardwired network—those alerts are merely audio and visual. "

V2V does not have to be actively controlling the car, which is why NHTSA has a whole section in the proposed rule about aftermarket devices.

The Nexar app doesn't _currently_ connect to the car. Yes, you were clear on that.

But you then write a whole article on how it's a V2V replacement. Which it's not (not for a whole host of use cases) unless it _does_ connect to the car in the future.


I then _explicitly_ pointed out how you referenced those use cases (autonomy) on your previous story.


So which is it? Will cell phones never, ever ever connect to the control systems of the cars? Or will cell phones "handle vehicle-to-vehicle comms better than radio networks"?

Because it certainly isn't "better" if it can't handle the _primary_ future use case (autonomy).

 

[Null_Space]

Oh, and if you lot are freaking out under the misapprehension that this could be a hacking vector for cars, wait until you read about the cybersecurity plans for V2V, which most definitely has hooks deep into the CANBus.

How is it misapprehension when you're telling is repeatedly that it _will_ be connected.

Where did I write that the Nexar app connects to your car? I think this is pretty unambiguous:

"As the system isn't integrated with the vehicle at all—there's no OBD2 port required or anything else that could be a vector from the Internet into your car's hardwired network—those alerts are merely audio and visual. "

V2V does not have to be actively controlling the car, which is why NHTSA has a whole section in the proposed rule about aftermarket devices.

"Oh, and if you lot are freaking out under the misapprehension that this could be a hacking vector for cars"

You say here it is a "misapprehension" that it could be used for hacking cars.

"cybersecurity plans for V2V, which most definitely has hooks deep into the CANBus."

So V2V has deep hooks into CAN, but you don't think it will be a hacking vector????

Unless, perhaps where you said "this could be" you were referring to Nexar. But there is no indication of that. In the rest of the post, you only mention V2V. You didn't quote a post about Nexar. It isn't clear from any post immediately above that post that you might be talking about Nexar.

And Nexar is a huge privacy issue, even without hooking into the CAN. It would be *worse* if it did, but it already isn't good.

No, of course I was referring to Nexar! Because reading the comments there appeared to be a misapprehension that hackers could compromise Nexar's app as a way into your car.

The privacy aspect I'm less sympathetic to simply because choosing to install Nexar on your phone and run it is an active decision, and it's not like Apple and Google (and plenty of other apps on both) aren't already doing all that data collection already. That cat is out of the bag, whether we like it or not.

Also, please don't think that DSRC V2V is any more private. There are all sorts of provisions for collecting the data and selling it to businesses in the NPRM. And at least with a cell phone I can put it in wireless mode or turn it off before driving.

But I believe we've been arguing at cross purposes.

Oh, and if you lot are freaking out under the misapprehension that this could be a hacking vector for cars, wait until you read about the cybersecurity plans for V2V, which most definitely has hooks deep into the CANBus.

How is it misapprehension when you're telling is repeatedly that it _will_ be connected.

Where did I write that the Nexar app connects to your car? I think this is pretty unambiguous:

"As the system isn't integrated with the vehicle at all—there's no OBD2 port required or anything else that could be a vector from the Internet into your car's hardwired network—those alerts are merely audio and visual. "

V2V does not have to be actively controlling the car, which is why NHTSA has a whole section in the proposed rule about aftermarket devices.

The Nexar app doesn't _currently_ connect to the car. Yes, you were clear on that.

But you then write a whole article on how it's a V2V replacement. Which it's not (not for a whole host of use cases) unless it _does_ connect to the car in the future.


I then _explicitly_ pointed out how you referenced those use cases (autonomy) on your previous story.


So which is it? Will cell phones never, ever ever connect to the control systems of the cars? Or will cell phones "handle vehicle-to-vehicle comms better than radio networks"?

Because it certainly isn't "better" if it can't handle the _primary_ future use case (autonomy).

So to make that a reality, either we're going to have to spend a lot of money installing DSRC radios at every stop sign and traffic light, plus some kind of back-end infrastructure to run it all, or cars just use the LTE modems that they will already have, and we skip adding DSRC and just use the cloud.

stop signs and traffic lights?

The main use case is freeways. Platooning on 25 mph surface streets, that already have minimal following distances, doesn't add much.