Safer Roads or Stronger Wi-Fi?

Limited spectrum has connected-car advocates at odds with expanded-Wi-Fi supporters.

Talking cars will one day make the roads safer, but will they come at the expense of Wi-Fi?
National Journal
Alex Brown
June 20, 2014, 9:36 a.m.

Talk­ing cars will one day be man­dat­ory, but in the mean­time, some think they’re hold­ing back the air­waves for much-needed Wi-Fi.

As In­ter­net ac­cess grows, more and more fre­quency is needed to sup­port Wi-Fi devices. Some of that fre­quency — the 5.9 GHz band — has been set aside for talk­ing cars. Vehicle-to-vehicle com­mu­nic­a­tion, which the Trans­port­a­tion De­part­ment says will one day be man­dat­ory, al­lows cars to alert one an­oth­er to their pres­ence and to warn drivers if a wreck is im­min­ent.

The Na­tion­al High­way Traffic Safety Ad­min­is­tra­tion es­tim­ates talk­ing cars could elim­in­ate 80 per­cent of wrecks not in­volving driver impair­ment.

For now, though, the 5.9 GHz band is spec­trum that can’t be used for Wi-Fi devices. Some see a middle ground in which the fre­quency is still used for talk­ing cars but shared for some Wi-Fi pur­poses.

Sens. Marco Ru­bio and Cory Book­er want to see if that’s pos­sible. Their Wi-Fi In­nov­a­tion Act, re­leased Fri­day, gives the Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion 18 months to test the spec­trum to see if it can be shared without in­ter­fer­ence. “This bill re­quires the FCC to con­duct test­ing that would provide more spec­trum to the pub­lic and ul­ti­mately put the re­source to bet­ter use, while re­cog­niz­ing the fu­ture needs and im­port­ant work be­ing done in in­tel­li­gent trans­port­a­tion,” Ru­bio said in a re­lease.

Some con­nec­ted-car ad­voc­ates think that timeline is rushed. At present, there are no firm spec­trum-shar­ing plans in place, said Paul Feen­stra of the In­tel­li­gent Trans­port­a­tion So­ci­ety of Amer­ica. Without plans, the FCC has noth­ing to test, and giv­ing it a brief timeline to find an an­swer could be prob­lem­at­ic.

“We’re con­cerned about put­ting dead­lines on the test­ing of the tech­no­logy that has yet to be in­tro­duced,” Feen­stra said. “We’re very con­cerned about pre­vent­ing a rush to judg­ment. [Rush­ing test­ing] could po­ten­tially put the fu­ture of vehicle-to-vehicle com­mu­nic­a­tions at risk.”¦ Any po­ten­tial for in­ter­fer­ence in that band is un­ac­cept­able.”

Talk­ing cars will have to com­mu­nic­ate at a rate of 10 sig­nals per second. For that to work, said Feen­stra, the sig­nal must be “high speed, it’s got to be se­cure, re­li­able, and it’s got to work every time.” He’s con­cerned Wi-Fi use on that fre­quency could clog up sig­nals and pre­vent the tech­no­logy from be­ing fool­proof.

In oth­er words, ced­ing part of the 5.9 GHz band — without be­ing ab­so­lutely sure it can be done in­ter­fer­ence-free — could en­danger what’s her­al­ded as one of the greatest auto safety break­throughs ever. But with the ever-in­creas­ing de­mand for Wi-Fi, it may prove to re­tain sole pos­ses­sion.

What We're Following See More »
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
20 hours ago

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.