MOTOR MOUTH
Net neutrality and our driving future
I’ m guessing that, like me, 97.3 per cent 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 all a- twitter following news the U. S. FCC 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, how it affects our cars.
So, what is net neutrality?
Among the explanations of what it is — and why we should be concerned — 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, regard- less of its origin, costs the same and is equally speedy.
That seems t o make sense, so what’s all the hubbub about?
Well, according to Automotive News, in reclassifying ISPs from “telecommunications services” to “information services,” FCC chair Ajit Pai is allowing ISPs not only to charge different fees for different services but also to regulate the speed at which certain information is transmitted. Without net neutrality, says Consumer 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, 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 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 i nnovation i nstead of encouraging it.” In other words, since billions of bytes 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 ( Light Detection and Ranging) 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- t o- vehicle ( V2V) communications that are transmitted via Dedicated Short Range Communications ( DSRC) systems 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 on- board sensors, V2V lets your car know if the approaching vehicle is going to stop for the red light or blow right through it.
Enough already, just give it to me straight. Will internet deregulation affect our future cars, yes or no?
Why, yes it will, though probably not as much as Comcast and GM suggest. 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- toinfrastructure ( V2I) communications will also be coming to you, but because little of the truly safety-critical messaging ever touches the networks of Comcast or any other carrier, Abuelsamid said “their prioritization argument is irrelevant.”
Exceptions will exist — communications from ambulances to 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. There’s up to US$ 15 trillion to be made in turning your future selfdriving cars into a mobile Shopping Channel and inundating you with ads, discounts and services from various sponsors. With autonomy rendering future automobiles largely homogeneous — save interior accoutrements — automakers will be depending greatly on the money 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 signalling 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 in the United States, it would seem that the Cana di a n government has seemingly no intention of 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 t hat NAFTA, as we all know, is being renegotiated and a significant part of the discussion centres on 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.