FCC’s C-V2X Approval: A Dream Deferred
It wasn’t supposed to be this way.? When automotive engineers set out to save lives, the skies should open, the heavens should sing, and lives should be saved.
More than 20 years ago (25 really) automotive engineers, intelligent transportation system mavens, and the Federal Communications Commission carved out 75MHz of spectrum in the 5.9GHz band for safety-centric automotive signaling and communications.
The dream that immediately seized the industry was that by enabling these low latency communications between vehicles cars would obtain comprehensive situational awareness and would be able to drive cooperatively and avoid collisions.? At the time, about 40,000 people were dying annually in car crashes.
Last week, the FCC finalized its decision to re-allocate 45MHz of that originally designated spectrum for unlicensed uses and affirmed its decision to preserve the remaining 30MHz for safety-of-life use cases.? In the process, the dream of cooperative driving and collision avoidance has been deferred perhaps indefinitely or until additional spectrum can be found.?
Today, 40,000 people are still dying annually in the U.S. in car crashes.
The contentiousness of the decision-making process even now was evident from the FCC’s statement, which detailed the entire history of its deliberations regarding:
C-V2X standards
Band usage – i.e. applications
Channel bandwidth – 10MHz? 20MHz? 30MHz?
Communications zones
Power and antenna height limits for roadside units
Power limits for on-board units
Out of band emissions limits for RSUs and OBUs
领英推荐
Technology transition – from DSRC to C-V2X - two years
Other spectrum for ITS
Given the vested interests of the automotive and ITS industries, opposition to the original FCC action to calve off 45MHz of the original 75MHz of spectrum was fierce, as detailed in the final order:
“ITS America v. FCC.? After releasing the First Report and Order, the (ITS America) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to vacate…? The Amateur Radio Emergency Data Network (AREDN) filed a separate petition asking the court to vacate the entire First Report and Order.”
Both petitions were rejected and the FCC was affirmed by the Court.
“The Alliance for Automotive Innovation and the 5G Automotive Association filed petitions for reconsideration.”? These, too, were rejected.
The net impact of these legal actions and petitions were additional years of delay which have further clouded the prospects of C-V2X technology.? What remains for so-called “Day 1” use cases will largely revolve around infrastructure-to-vehicle communications such as red light violation warnings, emergency vehicle traffic light pre-emption, transit signal priority, and, finally, tolling
Out the window for now, along with the re-assigned 45MHz of spectrum, are applications that rely on collective perception messages and maneuver coordination messages for managing intersections and merges; and personal safety messages for mobile devices.
In many respects, C-V2X (and DSRC) technology was superseded over time by the onset of camera-based and radar-enhanced advanced driver assist systems.? Vehicle-to-vehicle communications were originally perceived as not only enabling collision avoidance but also allowing drivers to “see-through” large vehicles in their path.
The world of C-V2X received a significant lift just a month ago in Europe at the latest meeting of the 5GAA when Volkswagen and BMW demonstrated their support of C-V2X technology, marking Volkswagen’s final acknowledgement of DSRC’s limitations and anticipated demise.? The FCC decision stirred some enthusiasm, too – though muted by the recognition of the limited application set and the enormous amount of time lost to legal and regulatory disputes.
The best news lies on the distant horizon with the potential for connectionless groupcast or unicast residing in 3GPP 5G Release 16+ (i.e. sidelink).? Since the current incarnation of C-V2X is LTE-V2X (Rel. 14/15), the market will have to wait.?
Senior Technical Director of Standards at Qualcomm, Jim Misener, tells us: “We can do an IP session with LTE-V2X.? (An IP session allows a session so there is some communication, albeit (user datagram protocol), not the greatest in terms of reliable communications.)? We really need Release 16 and new spectrum in order to do anything other than ad hoc broadcasting.”
Long story short, C-V2X is simply another chapter in the folly of man.? We set out with our best of intentions and our allocated spectrum and our tests and our standards and our regulations and we fall short.? Man plans.? God laughs.? The FCC rules.
Strategist, futurist, consultant - focusing on emerging technology & disruption in the mobility industry.
2 个月I share your sentiments Roger C. Lanctot & applaud your bringing up the topic again. In the 20-25 years, through many articles read, written, and shared - we had the front row seats in this drama - about the impending V2X safety benefits, "we're almost there", then "we're not there", NPRM, CAMP. DOT pilots, DSRC vs. Cellular P2P, C-V2X , FCC divvying up the 75Hz, and on & on. In my years at an OEM, I've been listeners to many of these chapters. The fact of the matter is, ultimately it was a matter of how to offset the cost of the additional radio, how soon will there be critical mass for the consumer to see the benefit enough to be willing to pay for it, is there competitive advantage for a single OEM to launch V2X. We need to remember, airbags did not happen because certain statistics of lack of on-road safety was bothering everyone. It happened because there was a clear mandate to install the same, and a STAR rating incentivizing airbags that led to customer preference and purchase. Suddenly it was a competition to put air bags everywhere in the car! On that note, as John Ellis points out, Euro NCAP's inclusion of V2X may finally do the trick, at least for the EU OEMs. I am sure the V2X saga will go on.....
This is an excellent article on a depressing subject. I wonder if the solution to managing flow might depend on something completely different... Could we realize the original goal but with different echnology: perhaps using UWB chips.
Helping founders, innovators, and business leaders transform vision into commercial success and operational excellence.
3 个月I was excited 25 years ago when V2X was an emerging technology. Today I am disappointed that it has taken so many years and has yet become pervasive and actionable. Maybe when we have vehicles on Mars it will be widely available.
There is an alternative for electromagnetic radio waves that doesn't need FCC approval. Optical Wireless Communication: Who needs autonomous driving if you can have 100mph light guided driver service? https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/who-needs-autonomous-driving-you-can-have-100mph-light-tom-loef-crxpe?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android&utm_campaign=share_via
Complex systems analyst and Professional Engineer focusing on infrastructure planning, land use, and policy.
3 个月Thank you, yes. This order set back V2X 25 years. They have some allocated spectrum (more than enough for safety applications) but no agreed-on radio communication standards. There is no chance of an FMVSS. They're prohibited from using the band for commercial use. This is dead.