Auto, cable industries clash over cars that talk wirelessly

The mention of a reward credit card evokes images of jet-setting across the globe in a first-class seat to then lounge in a suite at a luxury resort.

But people who don’t plan properly could find themselves spending hundreds of dollars a year — without one hotel stay or flight to show for it.

The problem is that many reward cards charge annual fees, and consumers need to do the math to make sure the perks they receive outweigh the cost. Every credit card has different rules for how consumers can earn and redeem miles, and what works for a consumer one year may not be such a good fit later if their spending or travel habits change.

Indeed, 1 credit cardholder in 5 is using a card that doesn’t match his or her needs, according to a survey by the market research firm J.D. Power. For instance, 44 percent of people with airline-focused credit cards either don’t spend enough on the cards to earn the miles they need, haven’t booked a reward flight in the past year or have not used any of their other card perks in the past year and a half.

Because of that disconnect, some cardholders tend to feel less satisfied with their accounts and could be paying unnecessary fees, says Jim Miller, senior director of banking for J.D. Power. But instead of staying put, people who feel like their reward cards don’t match their spending habits might want to shop around, he says.

Cars that wirelessly talk to each other are finally ready for the road, creating the potential to dramatically reduce traffic deaths, improve the safety of selfdriving cars and someday maybe even help solve traffic jams, automakers and government officials say.

But there’s a big catch. The cable television and high-tech industries want to take away a large share of the radio airwaves the government dedicated for transportation in 1999, and use it instead for superfast Wi-Fi service. Auto industry officials are fighting to hang on to as much of the spectrum as they can, saying they expect they will ultimately need all of it for the new vehicle-to-vehicle communications, or V2V.

The government and the auto industry have spent more than a decade and more than $1 billion researching and testing V2V technology. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is expected to propose as early as next month that new cars and trucks come equipped with it. General Motors isn’t waiting for the proposal, saying it will include V2V in Cadillac CTS sedans before the end of the year.

“We’re losing 35,000 people every year (to traffic crashes),” said Harry Lightsey, a General Motors lobbyist. “This technology has the power to dramatically reduce that. To me, the ability of somebody to download movies or search the internet or whatever should be secondary to that.”

The fight pits two government agencies against each other: the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates spectrum and sympathizes with wireless proponents, and NHTSA, which regulates auto safety and has long made V2V a top priority. The White House, which is currently reviewing NHTSA’s proposal to require the technology in new cars, is caught between two of its goals: greater auto safety and faster wireless service.

With V2V, cars and trucks wirelessly transmit their locations, speed, direction and other information ten times per second. That lets cars detect when another vehicle is about to run a red light, is braking hard or is coming around a blind turn in time for the driver or, in the case of selfdriving cars, for the vehicle itself to take action to prevent a crash.

V2V’s range is up to about 1,000 yards in all directions, even when sight is blocked by buildings or other obstacles. That gives the technology the advantage of being able to detect a potential collision before the driver can see the threat, unlike the sensors and cameras of self-driving cars that sense what’s immediately around the vehicle.

Those who want more of the airwaves for Wi-Fi say that with self-driving cars on the horizon to eliminate human errors, the safety benefits of V2V are less important. They point out that it could be more than 20 years before the full benefits of V2V are realized, because it takes decades for the automotive fleet to be completely replaced.