[RABAUKE]

From the National Post, David Booth has been writing extensively on EV's and other tech issues of late.

Motor Mouth: How net neutrality will affect our driving future

In the end, reduced regulations of the internet won't affect safety as much as it will automakers' bottom line

David Booth by DAVID BOOTH | 1 HOUR AGO

I’m guessing that, like me, 97.3 percent of you — that’s probably just an approximation — didn’t care a fig for net neutrality until about a week ago. But, with the media in such a twitter following news the U.S. Federal Communications Commission is dismantling Obama-era rules that guaranteed the impartiality of the Internet, one can’t help but wonder whether it affects you or, more specifically — if you just happen to write a column called Motor Mouth — how it affects our cars.

So, what is net neutrality?

Among the manifold explanations of what net neutrality is — and why we should be concerned about it — I prefer Fortune magazine’s definition for its simplicity: “Net neutrality is the idea that the web is open to everyone, meaning that Internet service providers (ISPs) can’t block content or intentionally slow down load times for particular websites.” In other words, all content, regardless of its origin, costs the same and is equally speedy.

Well, according to Automotive News, in reclassifying Internet service providers from “telecommunications services” to “information services,” FCC chairman Ajit Pai is allowing said ISPs to not only charge different fees for different services but to also regulate the speed at which certain information is transmitted. Without said net neutrality, says Consumers Reports, “Internet service providers will be allowed to slow down and possibly block some websites and online services” while charging companies more for “fast lanes” that provide speedier service. Service providers love this because it allows them to charge more for bandwidth hogs. Said hogs — cue Netflix and YouTube — are against it because consumers will either have to pay more for access to their information or see their service slow down.

OK, I get that this is going to slow down my Netflix downloads, but what’s slower data got to do with cars?

Again, like most of you, I pretty much ignored the foofaraw (I use YouTube sparingly and don’t give a f … another one of those figs for Netflix) until reading that Comcast is using the auto industry’s current fixation — self-driving cars — to justify its support for reneging on the promise of equal access for all. Specifically, the American telecom giant, as part of its submission to the FCC, said that “autonomous vehicles may require instantaneous data transmission” and that “black letter prohibitions” on paid prioritization “may stifle innovation instead of encouraging it.” In other words, since billions of bytes — see last week’s Motor Mouth for exactly how many — will be transferred to and from the autonomous automobiles of our future, it behooves us, for safety reasons, to prioritize that data, even if it means interrupting our streaming of a now-Kevin Spacey-less House of Cards. General Motors, for one, agrees, noting “mobile broadband being delivered to a car moving at 75 mph down a highway … is a fundamentally different phenomenon from a wired broadband connection to a consumer’s home, and merits continued consideration under distinct rules that take this into account.”

Since our cars are becoming computerized, this makes sense, right?

Well, yes and no. First of all, the primary source of information in the self-driving revolution is the in-car sensors that act like our eyes and ears, scanning the surroundings. The various camera, radar and Lidar systems — and the complicated algorithms that tell cars what it is those sensors are seeing — are perfectly capable of driving the car all by their own selves.

The outside information that would be transmitted to our robot cars, while hugely beneficial, is of secondary importance. More importantly, much of said safety-related information would come from vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications that is transmitted via Dedicated Short Range Communications (DRSC) systems (fully covered here in another Motor Mouth) and not the common, everyday wireless that the FCC is now declining to regulate. For instance, by taking note of where other cars are and monitoring their onboard sensors, V2V lets your car know if the approaching vehicle is going to stop for the red light or blow right through it.

Why yes it will, though probably not as much as Comcast and GM allude. The data the ISPs carry — requests for rides, updates, road closures, etc. — are “not time critical,” said Sam Abuelsamid, senior analyst at Navigant Research, in an article in theverge.com, “and do not require prioritization.” So, yes, vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communications will also be coming to you, but since little of the truly safety-critical messaging ever touches the networks of Comcast or any other carrier, Abuelsamid says “their prioritization argument is irrelevant.” Exceptions will exist — communications from ambulances to hospital emergency rooms will benefit from having their patient data prioritized — but not nearly as much as the ISPs suggest.

So, if it’s not about safety, what is it about?

At the risk of repeating last week’s diatribe, follow the money. As I detailed last week, there’s up to US$15 trillion to be made in turning your future self-driving cars into a mobile Shopping Channel and inundating you with ads, discounts and services from various sponsors. With autonomy rendering future automobiles largely homogenous — save interior accoutrements — automakers will be depending greatly on the monies generated from such connected services.

General Motors’ submission is simply an indication of its willingness to pay for having premium access to those cars and, if I am reading the tea leaves at all right, Comcast is signaling it will be more than happy to charge GM for the privilege.

How will this affect Canadians and our cars?

The good news is that, unlike the United States, it would seem that the Canadian government has seemingly no intention on reneging on net neutrality regulations. Along with better access to general internet channels and services, it will probably mean more choice in content when our cars eventually become inundated with online messaging. The bad news is that NAFTA, as we all know, is being renegotiated and a significant part of the discussion centers around digital trade. One might expect, then, to see the combined might of American internet providers and the auto industry pressuring Canadian negotiators for some “flexibility” on our strict adherence to net neutrality.

[Efthreeoh]

I'm sorry, but this is an issue because why?

[RABAUKE]

I just thought it was interesting and thought others might too. For my two cents I have no interest in autonomous cars, but some folks on this forum seem to love the technology, future and all that goes with it.

Happy Christmas

[wdb]

There are other practical reasons to prioritize packets. Health data for one example, security data for another. The original regulation put in place during Obama's presidency was far too restrictive and onerous. It needed modification at the very least.

Most of what you read lately is doom/gloom/assume the worst "foofaraw" (love that word), which is to say you should largely ignore it. This internet thingie is still very much under construction.

[RABAUKE]

Originally Posted by wdb

There are other practical reasons to prioritize packets. Health data for one example, security data for another. The original regulation put in place during Obama's presidency was far too restrictive and onerous. It needed modification at the very least.

Most of what you read lately is doom/gloom/assume the worst "foofaraw" (love that word), which is to say you should largely ignore it. This internet thingie is still very much under construction.

It's a great word.....Happy Christmas

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by wdb

There are other practical reasons to prioritize packets. Health data for one example, security data for another. The original regulation put in place during Obama's presidency was far too restrictive and onerous. It needed modification at the very least.

Most of what you read lately is doom/gloom/assume the worst "foofaraw" (love that word), which is to say you should largely ignore it. This internet thingie is still very much under construction.

With data networks, it will always be under "construction". The issue at hand here is how the system here in the States have been allowed to evolve. Lifting the net neutrality restrictions will not all of a sudden cause the handful of ISPs, and in particular, the one or two of them that operate in local "open" markets to start shelling out tons of capital to upgrade their infrastructure/improve their service.

What should happen and the anti-government meddling crowd will be up in arms about this is to have a publically owned infrastructure which provides the wiring up to your home/business. The other end terminates into a smaller MAE/colo site where the ISPs can run their backbones in to. From there the ISPs would connect into the publically owned infrastructure to provide final service into the Internet. This allows maximum choice as the ISP won't own the lines to your home and reduces expenditures for ISPs to drop backbones into their own networks. As a consumer, you would just say I want Comcast or Time Warner or Verizon or.....who ever has done the investment to pull a connection into your MAE/colo for your area. A setup like this would be as close to a free open market than the sham system we have in place now.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

With data networks, it will always be under "construction". The issue at hand here is how the system here in the States have been allowed to evolve. Lifting the net neutrality restrictions will not all of a sudden cause the handful of ISPs, and in particular, the one or two of them that operate in local "open" markets to start shelling out tons of capital to upgrade their infrastructure/improve their service.

What should happen and the anti-government meddling crowd will be up in arms about this is to have a publically owned infrastructure which provides the wiring up to your home/business. The other end terminates into a smaller MAE/colo site where the ISPs can run their backbones in to. From there the ISPs would connect into the publically owned infrastructure to provide final service into the Internet. This allows maximum choice as the ISP won't own the lines to your home and reduces expenditures for ISPs to drop backbones into their own networks. As a consumer, you would just say I want Comcast or Time Warner or Verizon or.....who ever has done the investment to pull a connection into your MAE/colo for your area. A setup like this would be as close to a free open market than the sham system we have in place now.

Electricity is a public-owned utility in many respects. The local electric company charges you on a use basis, and charges you on a use-based rate structure. Seems all to work out in the end.

I found the OP's linked article to be pointless. It is writing about Net Neutrality in 2017 when autonomous cars are not even a reality (all we have now are engineering development models). How data will be transmitted to AVs 25 years from now is mostly unknown at this point in time and I'm pretty sure whatever Government regulations that will be conjured up in 2045 to manipulate the internet have yet to be dreamed up by people not yet born.

My 2 cents.

[uniqueMR]

[RABAUKE]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Electricity is a public-owned utility in many respects. The local electric company charges you on a use basis, and charges you on a use-based rate structure. Seems all to work out in the end.

I found the OP's linked article to be pointless. It is writing about Net Neutrality in 2017 when autonomous cars are not even a reality (all we have now are engineering development models). How data will be transmitted to AVs 25 years from now is mostly unknown at this point in time and I'm pretty sure whatever Government regulations that will be conjured up in 2045 to manipulate the internet have yet to be dreamed up by people not yet born.

My 2 cents.

Pointless? I thought it was interesting, the whole notion of autonomous cars, net access and advertising along with EV's etc seems to be an interesting topic for discussion is all.....Merry Christmas

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by RABAUKE

Pointless? I thought it was interesting, the whole notion of autonomous cars, net access and advertising along with EV's etc seems to be an interesting topic for discussion is all.....Merry Christmas

Didn't really mean to rain on your parade, but I'm pretty much in a similar business, but regarding airplanes. There's been no discussion whatsoever regarding Net Neutrality either when Obama introduced it nor when Trump killed it.

I can only speak to the USA, but thinking that the US Department of Transportation is not going to be intimately involved with the surveillance of autonomous cars and that industry is going to control autonomous traffic instead is a pipedream, which makes any discussion regarding the situation of internet regulation at the advent of autonomous driving pointless.