Back in November the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted unanimously to divide a Wi-Fi spectrum originally reserved for auto safety technology, splitting the band to provide greater bandwidth for other onboard connected services, including web connections for wireless devices. Now, two groups have challenged that decision.
According to a report from Reuters, the Intelligent Transportation Society of America, as well as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, filed a legal challenge to the U.S. Count of Appeals for the District of Columbia opposing the FCC’s November ruling.
Back in 1999, the 5.9 GHz spectrum block was reserved for automakers to develop new tech for vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC) crash avoidance systems. So far, automakers have largely failed to utilize the spectrum.
In November, the FCC voted to shift 30 megahertz of the 75 megahertz reserved for short-range V2V DSRC systems to Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything (C-V2X) systems, with the other 45 megahertz slated for Wi-Fi use. While automakers and auto groups say the decision will hurt auto safety, telecom companies, cable companies, and other content companies say the shift is necessary for greater in-vehicle Wi-Fi usage.
V2V DSRC systems were previously offered in just one General Motors vehicle, namely the Cadillac CTS. However, some studies suggest that widespread implementation could prevent up to 600,000 crashes annually. The tech would enable vehicle communication with data transfer at distances up to 300 meters, identifying risks and issuing warnings prior to a crash.
The auto safety tech was previously set for greater implementation following a U.S. government mandate issued under the Obama administration. However, the mandate stalled under the Trump administration.
Following the FCC vote in November, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said that there was a “pressing need” for the government to allocate additional Wi-Fi bandwidth to “be able to engage in telework, remote learning, telehealth, and other broadband-related services.”
Subscribe to GM Authority for ongoing General Motors news coverage.
Comments
Why do we need more WiFi use in vehicles. Already enough distracted drivers. Do I want vehicle to vehicle communication- no. I think we need to invest in better roads and more driver training. What do we do to get people to pay attention, well why not go back to having required drivers education in schools to start. A tougher test for a drivers license would be good too along with tougher fines. Then what happened to making the phones non functional in a moving vehicle?
Not sure to down vote or up vote as distracted drivers and more training are 100% needed. But the V2V will help cars be even smarter and avoid crashes and unfortunately tech and everything is moving in that direction. If a car ahead can communicate a standing water on the road, slick icy conditions or an object or pot hole in the road and next car can be made aware and take preventable measures. Nothing is going to stop the onslaught of tech, tracking and communication in vehicles, we already have that with phones. The WiFi is not so much for passengers as for the vehicle and ability to communicate and get information (IE updates). It would be nice to have a function where a curtain is up around the driver where they can’t use the phone while in motion, I would 100% support that unless it is a call or voice through the entertainment system
I don’t want V2V tech in my vehicle. Under no circumstance do I want my vehicle performing automatic actions based on other vehicle actions on the road.
I will be the judge of whether or not I need to brake when a driver that had no business pulling out in front me did so anyway. I don’t need a nanny system giving me whiplash when I know it will be close but that I’m not going to hit them. And also in this scenario, is a nanny braking system going to account for vehicles behind me? What if there is another vehicle behind me that is too close and doesn’t have a nanny system? Am I to be rear ended as well?
I mean seriously. V2V could let the idiot that pulled out in front me escape unharmed, and leave me in an accident, rear-ended, with whiplash, where without V2V, I’d have been left unharmed and given the idiot that pulled out in front me something to think about with-the-completely-under-my-control near miss.
And no driver test’s in other than English in the USA. If you can’t read English you have no business driving in the USA. KISS
I guess use it or lose it,spectrum sales is big bucks for the feds.
The IEEE who established the WiFi standards should be involved with this issue, so there will be a new national standard, and all automakers follow this standard and produce a true cooperation between brands for highway safety.
Bad precedent – Hope everyone realizes that V2V systems will enable future ‘government’ monitoring and tracking of all vehicles. Simple antennas on the roadside can identify your car, measure your speed, send you a bill for using mileage on all roadways like Buttigieg proposed, and know exactly where the car traveled.
Just think how innocently we all adapted cell phones for the ‘convenience and safety’. No one thought that we’d enable law enforcement to be able to track every individual carrying a live one anywhere. We are 37 years past 1984.
Or maybe just maybe, Americans get serious about driving. As in serious driver training like they do in Germany. Hell they should pay the German government to make a program for all of the USA with states fine tuning it to their flavor but it still would be rigorous. The new American mindset is to absolve oneself of responsibility and accountability. Case in point manufactures being sued due to how one misuses their products. Everything is about how to make ones life so much easier and make one more lazy.
Stop making these cars so complicated so that they need more electronics in them. Especially considering now cars aren’t even complete because they are missing chips for a few systems that are not essential.
I think the US & Overseas manufacturers should make every effort to make their cars & trucks as safe as possible.. Using all technology, techniques & advanced engineering with an emphasis on the most updated wifi technology… They must go after as much RF spectrum as is needed to protect the drivers on all roads in US of America..!
It Sounds Like A Challenge Or Goal That Every One Sets Their Mind Too.. No Matter What..! Do We Have To Think How Many Lifes That Could Be Lost Without Fullfilling This Goal…
Think About What We Do On The Moon or Now Mars..!
Ken🙏👍🇺🇸🙋🚗💨
I have no objection to V2V. V2X seems like a really bad idea for people who don’t live in cities. Ultimately though, the lack of adoption leads me to believe that this a technology looking for an application. No one really has a compelling reason to develop the equipment and software. All of the braking tech is already being incorporated into cars without V2V. Normally, I would say it lacks a “killer app”, but I’m guessing that’s inappropriate for a safety system. 🙂