Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:I give up, surrounded by navel-gazers (Score 1) 225

The original topic of discussion is the ability to create a paid fastlane for some companies FOR DATA CARRIED OVER THE INTERNET to AVs. Now that you finally admit that the data does, indeed, traverse the internet and not just the "last mile" wireless connection from some cell carrier to the car, maybe you realize that a fast lane for that data is ON THE INTERNET, which net neutrality laws would prohibit.

First, no, net neutrality laws do not prohibit a fast lane. They prohibit paid prioritization, which means granting a fast lane from an ISP's customers to a specific company in exchange for money from that company.

Second, I neither said nor implied that data only traverses the last mile.

So again, congratulations. You just proved a tautology that does nothing to counter anything that I or anyone else on this thread has said.

existing cellular networking is well beyond the point where making latency better is not worth the expense.

And now you're back at considering only the wireless cell carrier connection and not the entire path for the data. I had such high hopes that when you admitted that the data comes over the internet that you might look at the big picture, but sadly, no.

I am looking at the big picture. You're just wildly flailing and making crap up. Here's a quick tutorial in networking in only ten words: A network can never be faster than its slowest link. For the foreseeable future, the slowest link will be the cellular network. Now do you get why nobody even bothers talking about a "fast path" through the entire Internet? Yes, it's theoretically possible for traffic to get slightly delayed at any of the various hops along the way, but that invariably pales in comparison with the huge latency in the last few hops between the customer and the backbone, because that's where ISPs are cutting corners in capacity.

a car must be capable of driving safely without relying on the Internet. That's an indisputable fact.

You say I'm the one making that statement, and then you repeat it again yourself. You deny that there might be any data that can make the car operate more safely that it could get from the internet, and that's just poppycock.

What is wrong with your reading comprehension? Saying that a car must be able to drive safely without relying on the Internet does not mean that an Internet connection cannot make a car safer. It is always possible to make something safer. Always. The fact that it is possible to make something safer DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT SAFE.

Your "indisputable facts" are also indisputable opinion.

My indisputable facts are governed by the laws of physics. Unless, of course, you'd like to throw all science out the window, in which case, sure, you might be right, and I might have magically gained the ability to fly because of the sunburn I got last week.

If find "it's obvious" to be a particularly unconvincing argument, especially when it comes to the future.

The only way the things I talked about could possibly not happen would be if nobody ever tried to start any new video-on-demand companies or tried to innovate while doing so. Otherwise, the very existence of paid prioritization fundamentally puts those innovators at a disadvantage because of their size. My argument was not that "it's obvious". My argument was very detailed and thorough. If, after reading it, the correctness of my argument is not obvious to you, the problem is not with my argument, but with your knowledge and understanding of the subject.

from content providers that are not their customers

I think the point is that the data providers on the internet, using Comcast business ISP service to provide the data you cannot imagine existing ARE COMCAST CUSTOMERS. It's the AV getting the data that are not the customers, and they aren't paying extra.

What the f**k are you talking about? There are exactly two realistic possibilities in your hypothetical, googol-to-one-against scenario in which cars somehow magically require insane amounts of bandwidth:

  • The car company buys Internet service for the car and is charged extra money because the car requires a fast connection to the Internet. In this case, the car company is the customer of that Internet service provider, and a so-called fast lane for those cars is NOT PAID PRIORITIZATION, AND THUS WOULD BE UNAFFECTED BY THE LAWS COMCAST IS TRYING TO OVERTURN.
  • The car's owner buys Internet service for the car, and is charged extra money because the car requires a fast connection to the Internet. In this case, the car company is the customer of that Internet service provider, and a so-called fast lane for those cars is NOT PAID PRIORITIZATION, AND THUS WOULD BE UNAFFECTED BY THE LAWS COMCAST IS TRYING TO OVERTURN.

What you'll notice here is that in either case, the so-called fast lane you're saying might be necessary IS NOT PAID PRIORITIZATION, AND THUS WOULD BE UNAFFECTED BY THE LAWS COMCAST IS TRYING TO OVERTURN. Therefore—and I'm only going to say this once, and in small words so you can get it through your thick skull—THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY SITUATION IN WHICH PAID PRIORITIZATION PROVIDES ANY BENEFITS FOR AUTONOMOUS CARS, PERIOD.

I'm through arguing with you. Your arguments are what I would expect from someone who is purely trolling. I have provided fact after fact to support my position. You, in response, have provided juvenile, barely-comprehensible gibberish that at best deliberately misrepresents what I have said in ways that are so outrageously over-the-top inaccurate that you'd think you were @TheRealDonaldTrump, and at worst seems to completely misunderstand the most basic facts about how the Internet and self-driving cars work.

You're clearly not trying to learn, because if you were, you would have recognized when I stated facts and tried to find ways to attack other parts of my opinion that were less factually grounded. You would have come up with new arguments based on what I have said instead of repeatedly recreating the same completely obvious and absurd straw man arguments that bear little resemblance to what I have said. And you're clearly not trying to win the argument, because if you were, you would have tried to come up with some plausible way to refute one of those points that, as I pointed out, are irrefutable facts, rather than taking the weasel way out and saying what amounts to, "Well that's just your opinion."

No, it isn't. None of the facts that I have used to support my opinion are opinions. You can't just avoid admitting that you're wrong by falsely claiming that contrary facts are merely opinions. That's not the way the real world works. It's time for you to grow up.

Out.

[sound of microphone dropping on the floor]

Comment Re:I give up, surrounded by navel-gazers (Score 1) 225

So the data that it isn't originating comes from somewhere else, right? Like OVER THE INTERNET. Pulling teeth, but we finally got there.

You aren't making any sense. At all. Yes, data that a car obtains over the Internet comes from the Internet. Congratulations. You've just stated a tautolog that has no bearing on the original topic of discussion.

It can't, because it isn't plausible for an autonomous car to need data that is simultaneously both time-critical and coming from something that isn't physically nearby

History is replete with people making grand pronouncements of what is good enough for the future. "All you need is a good ship and a few stars to sail her by." And now we have GPS. "GPS with selective availability is all anyone needs to keep track of where they are." And now SA is turned off and we can do so many more things.

As I've said elsewhere, information is either personalized to the vehicle and its position or it isn't. For information that isn't personalized to the vehicle, there's no benefit of a polling model through a "fast path" over a broadcast model. For information that is personalized to the vehicle, it either is about something nearby or something far away. If it is about something near you, no matter what you do, the laws of physics won't allow you to get the latency down to the point where you can do that via the Internet. And if it is about something far away, timing is not critical. Ostensibly, there might be some slight areas on the fringe where it would occasionally have been better if a device got information slightly earlier, but in the grand scheme of things, this is lost in the statistical noise.

And even if it were detectable above the noise—a whole tenth of a percent—it still wouldn't make sense to use prioritization (paid or otherwise) to achieve it. The thing is, you can always make something better. There comes a point at which making things better is not worth the expense, and for all currently conceivable self-driving car tech, existing cellular networking is well beyond the point where making latency better is not worth the expense. For example, we could theoretically cause two or three extra cars to take a different route around the accident by reducing latency (assuming you don't just use a broadcast model, which makes far more sense than any low-latency polling model), but it wouldn't be worth making a million cars poll the servers four times as often just to save a few minutes for a couple of cars.

"The only data an AV can ever ever need is what it can get from other cars around it" is another such pronouncement.

You're the only one implying that any of us ever said that. What we said was that:

  • a car must be capable of driving safely without relying on the Internet. That's an indisputable fact.
  • Some data applies to an entire region (e.g. earthquake early warning). That can and should be broadcast region-wide to avoid wasting precious bandwidth. That's also an indisputable fact.
  • Apart from such broadcast data, no data can realistically be time-critical unless it is being generated physically close to you, because if you're far away from the incident or whatever, you will still have plenty of time to act on information about it even if the information gets to you later. That's also an indisputable fact.
  • If information is generated near you, you'll always get the information faster if you get it directly from the source rather than over the Internet. That is also an indisputable fact.

The odds of the universe changing such that I become wrong on any one of those points before the heat death of the universe are only slightly higher than the odds of a self-driving car (not airplane) crashing into the window outside my boss's office (which is not on the ground floor). You're arguing about the possibility of harm to innovation with a googol-to-one odds.

By contrast, the serious harm caused by paid prioritization is extremely obvious and has roughly a 100% chance of happening in the real world within the next ten years if paid prioritization is allowed. If an ISP can extort money from content providers that are not their customers merely to prevent throttling traffic to people who are their customers, that not only opens the door for arbitrary amounts of extortion (that's a nice website; it would be a shame if every [Insert ISP] user suddenly couldn't get to it), but also means that startups (which have less money) won't be able to afford the extortion, will be shut out of markets, and will be unable to introduce the sorts of innovation that drives technology forwards.

You're like the guy who after being told that there's one in a million odds, says, "So you're saying there's a chance?" There's a chance of anything. That doesn't mean it's a big enough chance to care about. In this case, it absolutely is not.

Comment Re:I give up, surrounded by navel-gazers (Score 1) 225

It can't, because it isn't plausible for an autonomous car to need data that is simultaneously both time-critical and coming from something that isn't physically nearby (thus having to go over the cellular network). The importance of quickly finding out about a problem is inversely proportional to the distance between you and that problem. That said, your argument presupposed that such data would someday be needed, so I was starting from that rather implausible assumption for the purposes of argument.

Actually, I just thought of one very narrow example of something that qualifies: warnings about an approaching earthquake. Of course, there's no plausible situation in which that piece of information would need to be personalized to a specific vehicle, so it is more appropriately transmitted as a broadcast rather than using any sort of Internet-based communications.

So let me revise that very, very slightly: It isn't plausible for an autonomous car to need data that is tailored to that vehicle, time-critical, and comes from something that isn't physically nearby. Thus, every possible problem can be solved both more effectively, more efficiently, and more cheaply via some other mechanism besides a so-called "fast lane".

Comment Re:The summary is insanely stupid (Score 1) 225

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.

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. :-)

We're talking about replacing the driver. That is perfectly doable without any internet connection whatsoever. It's also a current requirement.

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.

Comment Re:Paid Prioritization in Telemedicine (Score 1) 225

Only in the relatively short term, before the robots learn to do the surgery themselves.

Besides, that won't require paid prioritization, because those customers will buy end-to-end dedicated fiber links with throughput guarantees. That data will never plausibly see the public Internet, because if it does, hackers will find a way to kill someone with it.

And even if they ran it over the public Internet (yikes!), it still wouldn't fall within the currently very narrow FCC ban on paid prioritization because the hospital's ISP would be charging money to the hospital that is its own customer, not to the hospital at the other end of the connection.

The problem is that the term "fast lane" is a gross misnomer here. It is an exceptionally imprecise description of what the law prohibits, and as a result, it sounds like exceptions would be useful when in fact, they would not. The law bans ISPs from charging money to companies that are not their customers in exchange for providing adequate data throughput between those companies and their customers. It does not ban ISPs from charging money to their own customers in exchange for getting sufficient data throughput.

Comment Re:I give up, surrounded by navel-gazers (Score 1) 225

I have a cellular modem. How does the cell company know it isn't in a car? How does the cell company know it isn't data for the onboard entertainment system which isn't as important?

Because car communications systems have IMEI numbers or equivalent indicating that they were built by a car company, and uses a different APN or whatever when providing data for tethering versus non-tethering. That's all pretty trivial.

And how is the cell company originating all this data, and not some company on the internet that is sending it to the car?

??? That question doesn't make sense. The cell company isn't originating anything. It is providing service, with different speeds of service, depending on whether the traffic is originating from the autonomous vehicle portion of a car or not. The direction of data flow is immaterial; what matters is that the car's owner (or the car's manufacturer) is the ISP's customer, and thus purchases service appropriate to the vehicle's data needs.

There's no reason to allow what is at that point a basic consumer need

How can data that isn't needed become a "basic consumer need"?

It can't, because it isn't plausible for an autonomous car to need data that is simultaneously both time-critical and coming from something that isn't physically nearby (thus having to go over the cellular network). The importance of quickly finding out about a problem is inversely proportional to the distance between you and that problem. That said, your argument presupposed that such data would someday be needed, so I was starting from that rather implausible assumption for the purposes of argument.

Comment Re:I give up, surrounded by navel-gazers (Score 1) 225

Wouldn't it be interesting to figure out sometime in the not too distant future that not all data that an AV can use to make a trip safer will be stuff it gets from the car next to it, but might also come from a server somewhere on the internet?

We already know that some data that an autonomous vehicle can use to maybe make a trip slightly safer could conceivably come from the Internet—things like ice on roads, for example. But—and this is a big but:

  • A vehicle has either detected the problem or it hasn't. If no other vehicle has detected the problem, then the information cannot be obtained, period. So the data won't just come out of nowhere, realistically.
  • If the two vehicles are close enough together that the second vehicle needs the information within single-digit seconds, it needs to get that information directly from the other vehicle, because server-based networking can't currently relay the data quickly enough (even with all the bandwidth in the world; the hard problem is figuring out who should get the data, not getting the data there).
  • If the two vehicles are far enough apart that the second vehicle does not need the information within just a few seconds, then it doesn't need prioritization to get the data in time.

Realistically, most road conditions are not sudden. They come on over a period of time. So usually you'll have O(hours) to find out about road conditions. Nobody is going to try to come up with some crazy system in which a server somehow continuously tracks a car by GPS to find out what cars might be near it quickly enough to do rapid messaging via a server, because it is computationally infeasible now, and by the time it is computationally feasible, the network bandwidth will be trivial; the odds of such a colossally expensive and complex scheme providing any real benefit right now are so small that you couldn't possibly justify the cost, and by the time you could justify the cost, networks will be fast enough that paid prioritization would be unnecessary.

The notion of autonomous vehicles benefitting from any significant prioritization really is quite absurd, much less paid prioritization, which as I have said elsewhere, by its very definition can only benefit one car manufacturer over another, and cannot actually benefit consumers.

Comment Re:The summary is insanely stupid (Score 1) 225

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

But we do know. Autonomous car projects started before the Internet, unless you count ARPANet. The first cross-country autonomous car trip (well, 98.2% under autonomous control) was way to heck back in 1995. This is not new. What is new is these systems being reliable enough (that last 1.8%), small enough (no racks of Sun workstations in the back), and cheap enough to end up in the hands of the general public.

We have more than thirty years of knowledge telling us what types of data autonomous vehicles need. In theory, any future innovation could require some sort of prioritization, but in practice, almost nothing ever does. Decades of innovation have taught us that. So whenever somebody comes in and says that the next big thing will, that should be met with the same level of suspicion as it was met with the last thousand times somebody has said similar things, because they've been wrong all of the last thousand times.

We don't know what kinds of data might be critical to have, yet. That's why we want to allow innovation.

The problem is that paid prioritization inherently prevents innovation. Say you have a company that wants to compete with Netflix in some new and innovative way. Suppose that Netflix pays Comcast for paid prioritization. That allows Comcast to keep their pipes small to the rest of the backbone, providing video-speed bandwidth only to Netflix and a few other companies that pay them. So now that new company, which (being a startup) has much more limited financial resources, cannot feasibly enter the market, and any innovative ideas that they have are stymied by the non-neutral paid prioritization. That's a very likely way that paid prioritization could harm innovation, and it has approximately a 100% chance of happening within the next ten years.

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 by way of a server in such a way that the communication cannot be better handled by direct car-to-car or car-to-local-network or car-to-mesh-nework communication, B. every autonomous vehicle company to be completely wrong about the absolute impossibility that such data could possibly exist, C. someone to recognize that they are all wrong, and D. the laws of physics to change so that communication between two cars via a server somewhere in the cloud could be faster than inter-car communication. The odds of this are approximately zero.

More importantly, even if the laws of physics completely change, if all of the autonomous vehicle manufacturers are wrong, and so on, paid prioritization will still hurt innovation even in the autonomous vehicle space, because the major autonomous vehicle companies will be able to pay for prioritization of their data, and smaller, newer autonomous vehicle companies (the ones that are more likely to actually innovate) won't be able to afford it.

In short, arguing that paid prioritization protects innovation is roughly like arguing that legalizing extortion would allow mobsters to better protect local businesses, and for precisely the same reason.

Comment Re:The summary is insanely stupid (Score 1) 225

"Real-time" has many meanings when used by humans. It doesn't always means "microseconds."

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.

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.

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.

By law, the first cars are supposed to stop to provide assistance.

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.

Comment Re:The summary is insanely stupid (Score 1) 225

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 somehow be harmful to autonomous cars, thus rendering your argument moot.

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".

You clearly did not comprehend what I said. None of the data you're describing has anything to do with mitigating risks. Its sole benefit is to avoid slowdowns and (maybe) improve the overall flow of traffic. An autonomous vehicle must be able to be completely blinded to all data external to the vehicle and still be able to drive safely. Any autonomous vehicle that can't do so simply should not be allowed on the roads, period. But that has nothing to do with whether the user of the car can benefit from having external data in terms of getting to their destination sooner. Those are entirely orthogonal questions that should not be conflated.

The critical point to understand is that safety-critical data is also inherently latency-critical, and therefore needs to not even have a single hop out to a tower. It needs to be point-to-point. Anything else isn't latency-critical, and the cellular network being faster cannot feasibly provide any significant benefit. Period.

And again, paid prioritization of traffic from one company's vehicles over another company's vehicles can never be beneficial, period.

Comment Re:I give up, surrounded by navel-gazers (Score 1) 225

I mean can no one but me understand that the more instant the delivery of broadcast communication is of road issues the better?

No, we understand that in theory, what you are saying is true. We also understand that:

  • In practice, it is physically impossible to make it faster to send data to a tower, on to a server in another state, back to the tower, and down to an adjacent car than to send it directly from one car to another. That's why all inter-car communication will always necessarily be either direct broadcast or mesh-based, not server-based. And as soon as you get far enough away for that to be impractical, you're also too far away for it to matter if the data is delayed, so there cannot possibly ever be a plausible reason why prioritization would be needed, paid or otherwise.
  • It isn't practical for a server to keep track of where every car is in real-time to determine whether two cars are near enough to one another to be worth using the bandwidth to relay the data from one car to another, making any server-based approach utterly infeasible.

Both of these are fairly fundamental limitations posed by the laws of physics, and no amount of prioritization—paid or otherwise—can ever hope to change them.

And again, as I've pointed out, even if somehow there could be some miraculous way for such a design to work reliably and fast enough to be usable, and even if we ignored the fact that it would be inherently inferior to a local mesh network, there would still be absolutely no sane reason for the FCC to allow a cellular company to charge money to the car company in exchange for getting the bits there faster. The cellular company should simply make the bits from all cars get there faster, non-preferentially, and slow down non-car traffic. There's no reason to allow what is at that point a basic consumer need to turn into a money grab between one company and another.

Comment Re:The summary is insanely stupid (Score 1) 225

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.

Comment Re:The summary is insanely stupid (Score 1) 225

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.

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Unix will self-destruct in five seconds... 4... 3... 2... 1...

Working...